Hong Kong - Foreign Lawyers - Overseas Lawyers Qualifying Examination - OLQE


Hong Kong

Legal Practitioners, Overseas Lawyers Qualifying Examination


[A] Overseas Lawyer, Hong Kong - Admission

> I: Conveyancing <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/2-Head-I-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=a88b99f8f52146ddbcab3fd02d1ff79f&hash=CB4209B76B0D016A560376EF7D5A00FE>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20260305160353/https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/2-Head-I-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=a88b99f8f52146ddbcab3fd02d1ff79f&hash=CB4209B76B0D016A560376EF7D5A00FE>.  

> II: Criminal & Civil Procedure <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/7-Head-II-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=85a70482720f4bfc952ba3d8f77a523a&hash=55B098503384097AF0B2844248A6CF92> archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250719003655/https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/7-Head-II-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=85a70482720f4bfc952ba3d8f77a523a&hash=55B098503384097AF0B2844248A6CF92>.

> III: Commercial & Company Law <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/12-Head-III-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=64d9232d9ca5430f8a7e0238bd63f7a0&hash=22D04B2DC0E69C9AB624EAE4F6AE6956>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250712030622/https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/12-Head-III-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=64d9232d9ca5430f8a7e0238bd63f7a0&hash=22D04B2DC0E69C9AB624EAE4F6AE6956>.

> IV: Accounts & Professional Conduct <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/17-Head-IV-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=15144c502d424904a2fd69f2768fb6bb&hash=44374EA256B2677A663278DAA979A1D0>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250719003656/https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/17-Head-IV-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=15144c502d424904a2fd69f2768fb6bb&hash=44374EA256B2677A663278DAA979A1D0>. 

> V: Principles of Common Law <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/22-Head-V-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=07b719e9e96e49338e80253cbf0cf4f7&hash=B88B742499F40BE1AD6FDBF0E508C04C>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250910230540/https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/22-Head-V-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=07b719e9e96e49338e80253cbf0cf4f7&hash=B88B742499F40BE1AD6FDBF0E508C04C>. 

> VI: Hong Kong Constitutional Law <https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/27-Head-VI-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=40da80f22725400abb60ba2cdbd60ded&hash=F38FADB57D7E502FE2F3FD68B7EA5B69>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250712035733/https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/Home/Maintain-Standards/Admission-Standards/OLQE/2025/C/27-Head-VI-Entire-Package.pdf?rev=40da80f22725400abb60ba2cdbd60ded&hash=F38FADB57D7E502FE2F3FD68B7EA5B69>. 


[B] Registered Foreign Lawyer, Hong Kong

> "[10]  Mr Chan submitted that the costs of Mr Johnston’s involvement were irrecoverable, because he, as a registered foreign lawyer, was prohibited from practising Hong Kong law by (hk) r 12 of the Foreign Lawyers Registration Rules , and had given an undertaking to the Law Society in the same terms as that rule. [11]   (hk) Rule 12 of the Foreign Lawyers Registration Rules is in the following terms: — ‘12. Prohibition on the practice of Hong Kong law (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a foreign lawyer shall not provide or offer any legal service which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, can properly be regarded as a service customarily provided by a solicitor in his capacity as such. (2) A foreign lawyer may give advice on or handle any matter which — (a) is expected to be subject to the law of a jurisdiction other than Hong Kong; or (b) involves private or public international law or conflict of laws.’ [12]  Mr Chan contended that in doing what he did in relation to the discovery application, Mr Johnston was guilty of a breach of this rule, and that, in consequence, none of the costs associated with his involvement should be recoverable by the defendant. He submitted that Mr Johnston had clearly been involved in the drafting of documentation for use at the hearing and in drafting letters and other communications with his client and the plaintiff, and that these matters amounted to the provision of legal services, and given that solicitors frequently communicated with their clients and opposite numbers, and drafted correspondence and court documentation, these were legal services which were customarily provided by a (hk) Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) solicitor in his capacity as such. [13]  Mr Chan also submitted that I should not follow the decision of Waung J in The Magway (HCAJ 14 & 246/1999, 23 June 2002 unreported), in which it was held that a registered foreign lawyer employed by a firm of Hong Kong solicitors did not himself provide any legal services so as to contravene this rule, as the services provided through him should be regarded as having been provided by the firm. [14]  Mr Maurellet, however, submitted that The Magway was correctly decided. He also submitted that even if I did not follow Waung J in holding that the services were provided by the firm rather than the registered foreign lawyer, the actions of Mr Johnston did not in fact involve a breach of r 12, and even if they did, I should follow the decision of Waung J in relation to an alternative basis for his decision, namely that a breach of r 12 did not prevent recovery of the costs of the registered foreign lawyer in question. [15]  For the Law Society, Mr Jamison submitted that insofar as Waung J held that r 12 did not apply to foreign lawyers employed by Hong Kong firms, this went too far, but that there was a legitimate distinction to be drawn between a person providing a legal service, and someone who assists in the provision of legal services, so that a registered foreign lawyer employed by a local firm could properly do clerical and administrative work, and a range of work (such as the drafting or preparation of court documents and correspondence) under the supervision and control of a Hong Kong solicitor, but not things that can only be done by a Hong Kong solicitor, such as the giving of advice on Hong Kong law, or appearing in court. [16]  In my view, the work done by Mr Johnston did not involve a breach of r 12. What r 12 prohibits is the provision by a foreign lawyer of any legal service which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, can properly be regarded as a service customarily provided by a solicitor in his capacity as such. [17]  The first question is whether Mr Johnston was providing a legal service. As to this, I would agree with Mr Chan and Mr Jamison that in suggesting, in The Magway, that a foreign lawyer employed by a local firm should not be regarded as a provider of legal services, since the client’s contract was with the firm and not the individual doing the work, Waung J would appear to have gone too far. If Waung J were right, r 12 would not in fact prevent a foreign lawyer from practising Hong Kong law, as an employed foreign lawyer could (theoretically, at least) advise on matters of Hong Kong law, or perhaps appear in court on behalf of a client, without being in breach of r 12 or the undertaking he gives to the Law Society. So long as he was employed by a local firm, he would not, on this basis, be the provider of the legal services in question. Such an approach would, I think, create a very substantial hole in r 12, by limiting it to foreign lawyers practising on their own account. [18]  The principal policy consideration behind r 12 would appear, as Mr Jamison submitted, to be to ensure that only persons qualified to advise on Hong Kong law, or provide Hong Kong legal services, do so. A secondary purpose may be to foster a strong local legal profession. The first of these objectives would not be promoted, and would indeed be undermined, by the approach taken in The Magway. [19]  I would therefore, with respect, disagree with Waung J in his view that an employed foreign lawyer does not himself provide legal services, so as to fall outside the purview of r 12. [20]  But that is not the end of the matter. Even if Mr Johnston might have been providing legal services (and in drafting correspondence and documentation for use in court proceedings, he would appear to have been doing so), it is still necessary to ask whether the services he provided were those customarily provided by a solicitor in his capacity as such. [21]  As to this, while it might well be said that all services related to the giving of legal advice or provision of legal services, when provided by a solicitor, would be provided in his capacity as such, it is still necessary to consider whether they are services of a nature ‘customarily’ provided by a solicitor. [22]  Mr Chan submitted that what Mr Johnston had done was to draft letters and other correspondence related to the case, and to draft affidavits for use in the discovery application, and that drafting of such documents was clearly a service that would customarily be provided by a solicitor in his capacity as such. [23]  However, I think that this is to describe what Mr Johnston did in terms that are over-broad. On the basis of the material before me, Mr Johnston was closely supervised in his work, acting on the instructions of Mr Hughes, supervised by him, and with his work product being reviewed and amended by Mr Hughes before it was eventually used. He did not take any action, or do anything of substance, without such supervision. In those circumstances, it seems to me that what Mr Johnston did was to draft correspondence and affidavits under the supervision of, and for review by, Mr Hughes. So stated, I do not think that what he did should be regarded as something ‘customarily’ done by a solicitor in his capacity as such. A qualified Hong Kong solicitor does not require supervision and review of his work (although there may be circumstances in which it might be prudent for this to be done — for example, where the solicitor in question is newly qualified, or inexperienced in the area of practice in question). Thus, I think that the doing of such work under supervision should not be regarded as work that is ‘customarily’ done by a Hong Kong solicitor, and therefore falls outside the ambit of r 12. [24]  Such an approach to r 12, which was broadly that advocated by Mr Jamison, would promote both the policy objectives that might be thought to underlie it. The legal services provided as a result would be subject to the supervision of a qualified Hong Kong solicitor (thus meeting the first policy objective), and by enabling a foreign lawyer to gain experience of Hong Kong legal practice and ultimately to qualify as a solicitor here (as I understand Mr Johnston has now done), the pool of qualified solicitors would be expanded and strengthened (thus promoting the second). [25]  I am therefore of the view that the work undertaken by Mr Johnston did not breach the provisions of r 12. [26]  However, even if I am wrong in this conclusion, I do not think that this would make any difference. This is because I am of the view that while a breach of r 12 would give rise to disciplinary consequences for the foreign lawyer concerned, it would not lead to the costs of the work done being rendered irrecoverable. [27]  In this regard, it is necessary to have regard to the provisions of (hk) s 50 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance . This provides that a person cannot in any legal proceedings recover costs for anything done by an unqualified person who acts as a solicitor. This appears to be the only provision in the Ordinance that renders costs of work done by an unqualified person irrecoverable. Its existence shows that the legislature has provided expressly for this consequence, but has done so to this extent only. That being so, I do not think that it would be right to impose the consequence of non-recoverability of costs in other situations where this has not been expressly provided for. Moreover, and in any event, the terms of s 50 would appear to be wide enough to cover all cases in which there would be good reason to impose this sanction. [28]  I do not think that s 50 would bite in this case. While Mr Johnston was clearly an unqualified person for the purposes of s 50 (since he was not, at the time, qualified to be admitted as a solicitor), I do not think that it can be said that he was acting ‘as a solicitor’. Given that all of the work that he did was supervised and reviewed, I would not characterise what he did as amounting to acting as a solicitor. As Litton JA (as he then was) pointed out in Hong Kong Bar Association v City West Investment Ltd [1994] 2 HKLR 39, at p 45: — ‘…Clearly a person, be he a financial advisor or even a foreign lawyer, may perform some of the everyday functions of a qualified barrister without ‘acting as a barrister’ within the meaning of section 44(a). …’ [29]  Here, even if the drafting and other work done by Mr Johnston might be regarded as work which a solicitor might do, he did not do so on his own, without supervision. Had he done so, the position might possibly have been different. However, the fact that he was throughout under Mr Hughes’ supervision means, in my view, that he was not himself ‘acting as a solicitor’ so as to bring the situation within the terms of s 50. [30]  For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the costs sought to be recovered in respect of Mr Johnston’s work are in principle recoverable. I therefore turn to consider the amount claimed in the light of the other objections that have been raised.": Voce v The Henley Group Ltd [2008] 6 HKC 1; [2008] 5 HKLRD 429.

> "[6]  I came to the conclusion that the costs of Mr Johnston’s involvement were recoverable by the Defendant. The detailed reasons for my view are set out in my judgment on costs dated 28 August 2008. Although I held, disagreeing with Waung J in The Magway (unreported, CFI, HCAJ 14 and 246/1999, 23 June 2002) that Mr Johnston, and not the Defendant’s solicitors, by whom he was employed, should be regarded as the provider of any legal services which he undertook on behalf of the Defendant, I concluded that there had not in fact been any breach of the relevant rule, or of section 50 of the Ordinance, as Mr Johnston was not, by reason of his having been closely supervised in all that he did by the partner in charge of this matter, providing legal services customarily provided by a solicitor in his capacity as such, or otherwise acting as a solicitor. I also agreed with Waung J’s other ground for decision in The Magway that a breach of Rule 12 did not lead to the irrecoverability of the costs attributable to the involvement of the registered foreign lawyer. ... [12]  I shall deal first with the question of the incidence of costs. As to this:- (1) It is not correct to say that the Plaintiff’s submissions as to The Magway were accepted in preference to those of the Defendant. As will be clear from my judgment of 28 August 2008, although I rejected one element of the Plaintiff’s submissions as to that authority, I accepted that it was rightly decided in respect of the question of the recoverability of fees charged in respect of a registered foreign lawyer notwithstanding any breach of Rule 12. Neither party’s submissions as to this authority were accepted in their entirety. However, ultimately, the effect of my decision so far as that case was concerned was that even if their had been a breach of Rule 12, this would not have affected the Defendant’s entitlement to recover its costs arising from Mr Johnston’s involvement on its behalf. (2) While it is correct to say that my decision was based on my conclusion that Mr Johnston was closely supervised in his work, a matter which may not have been very clear until the Defendant’s solicitors’ letter of 5 March 2008 provided more information as to this, I do not see that this assists the Plaintiff, given that the Plaintiff continued, even after that date and with that information available to it, to insist that the costs referable to Mr Johnston’s involvement should be disallowed. The position might have been different had the Plaintiff dropped this point on receipt of the letter of 5 March 2008, but it did not do so. Had it not been for the Plaintiff’s insistence that the fees referable to Mr Johnston’s involvement were irrecoverable by the Defendant, the hearing on 14 May 2008 would almost certainly have been rendered unnecessary. I therefore do not think that it would be right to award the Plaintiff its costs up to this point. (3) Further, while this point was, in my view, one of general importance to the solicitors’ profession, this does not justify depriving the Defendant of its costs in respect of the argument. The point was raised by the Plaintiff in an attempt to escape having to bear the Defendant’s costs. Having taken the point, and argued it all the way to the hearing, I see no reason why the Plaintiff should not have to bear the costs of the argument now that it has failed, simply because the point might be regarded as one of general importance. The hearing was necessitated because the point seemed to me to be one which merited fuller ventilation than might have occurred had it been dealt with on paper. But that does not make it any the less a point which was raised by the Plaintiff, on which the Plaintiff failed. (4) Although it is right to say that the amount of costs claimed by the Defendant was reduced (by about one third), I do not think that this merits the making of the order proposed by the Plaintiff in this case, particularly since the hearing was necessitated by the Plaintiff’s insistence on the irrecoverability of any amount in respect of Mr Johnston’s involvement in the matter.": Heather Anne Voce v The Henley Group Ltd [2008] HKCU 1682.