Civil Justice Reform has been a long time in coming. Propositions for reform were first made in 2001 and the research into what is best for Hong Kong, public consultations and ensuing legislation have now all been completed. The Law Society has, like the Judiciary and the Bar, provided extensive opportunities to its members to be trained up in the niceties of the changes, and the only thing remaining to ensure that implementation will bring about the benefits hoped for is a change of attitude on the part of all the stakeholders.

By now all litigators will be applying new rules. They would do well to remind themselves of the underlying objectives of these rules as set out in Order 1A. The amendments to the rules reflect a re-definition of success and provide a new framework for the execution of the fundamental values embedded in litigation in our courts.

Civil procedure goes to the heart of justice in our community. With even the most excellent of judges, the most ornate of court buildings and the most robust of rights enforcement, what matters most is that the man in the street must have access to a proper resolution of his dispute. The legal system we enjoy is mature and has evolved for over a century, relying in no small part on the richness of the English legal system. Our English counterparts, led by the former Chief Justice Lord Woolf of Barnes, identified weaknesses that had crept into the English court system and introduced whole-scale changes there several years ago.

Among the weaknesses we identified for ourselves in Hong Kong were that the system was becoming unnecessarily confrontational, litigation had become most complex with cumulative delays exerting pressure on the court diary, and the parties felt compelled to pursue an endless chain of interlocutory applications. All of this caused litigants to feel the whole exercise was too costly. Some even felt that the system was being run for the convenience of lawyers. Many of these weaknesses were those identified by Lord Woolf in England as well.

Like England we have introduced significant changes, but we have not followed suit totally. Instead the reforms we now have are cherry-picked from those that were introduced in England, and take into account the existing system. This was a result of much consultation and the Law Society has played an active part in the Judiciary's formulation of the proposals.

One of the main thrusts of the changes is to alter the role of the Judge. Instead of sitting as a neutral passive arbitrator, leaving the parties to present the case as they consider fit, Judges have been given a plain duty to produce a just result which is proportionate in the circumstances, and in so doing a Judge will be a case manager. While in the past the parties' lawyers could claim to know more about the case and so have more of a say in the road leading to trial, today these lawyers must observe their new duty to assist the Judge to perform the role of case manager.

In my view this is a right approach. The court's resources are not unlimited and it is a fallacy to believe that the resources of time and cost should be discarded from consideration in pursuing the right result in a case. Proportionality and a sense of procedural economy are most essential. Litigators must therefore appreciate this change of approach and adopt a new attitude to bring about the right result for their clients. They owe a duty to not only their clients but to the court on the public resource of time and cost. Lawyers have a duty to use the court's resources properly and to give sound and reasoned views on the case to the Judge to enable him to do his job. Indeed the position that solicitors hold as officers of the court takes on an added significance when seen in this light.

Litigators and litigants will also need to remember the rules require them to actively consider dispute resolution mechanisms throughout the conduct of the case. Though the practice direction on mediation will only come into effect on 1 January 2010, the provision in Order 1A is not suspended. Hence, the duty to facilitate the settlement of disputes remains an underlying objective of the rules and opportunities to settle substantive or procedural issues in full or even in part should be pursued. Here again litigators will need to adopt a new attitude, and abandon their blind aggression in the name of asserting or protecting a client's rights without compromise.

This will not necessarily sit well with some clients who may interpret any suggestion that a negotiation be commenced as a sign of their lawyer giving in. That would be a mistake. The courts will soon dish out costs sanctions against clients who unreasonably refuse to consider sensible proposals for settlement. And woe on the solicitor who stands in the way of a settlement for whatever reason ?the costs sanction could be levied on the solicitor who acts in contravention of the stated objectives of the rules.

Mediation is the chosen mode of dispute resolution outside of the court room, and I support this. Mediated outcomes often encompass more than what a Judge could provide in an order or judgment. Solicitors will have a particular role to play in the mediation process, either as mediation advocates or as mediators. The Law Society will devote resources to assist solicitors by providing suitable premises for mediation and in training more in the different aspects of mediation.

The Woolf reforms in England have not brought the cost of litigation down. I do not recall that the reforms ever had the reduction of legal fees as an objective. Indeed, the reforms could mean that litigation is more costly in some cases. This is because there is a need to undertake more preparations at an early stage of the court proceedings. The Law Society has pointed out that this front-loading of the work will be a financial burden on some litigants.

Yet, if we look at this aspect of the reforms in a constructive light, the extra work at the outset will mean that the parties should have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. This will also enable solicitors to advise on merits of the case, and the cost of proceeding. Litigants need this information. They need to know what the cost commitment is before being sucked further into the litigation. We all know there are some people who allow litigation to take over their lives, especially when it comes to their financial well-being.

Clients will also appreciate the early analysis of the case for the purposes of entering into a negotiation. They cannot properly negotiate without knowing what they are in for. The front-loading of the work will hopefully enable all to make more intelligent decisions on settlement or on going ahead with the litigation. Seen in this light, clients will gain added efficiency down the litigation road for the cost of front loaded work.

The civil justice reforms should ensure that the time scale of bringing cases to trial is shorter and more certain. The immediate impression may be that litigation is no less complex, but over time when litigators gain more familiarity with the rules, cases should run more smoothly with less complexity. Certainly solicitors with a changed attitude will make litigation less of an adversarial process as they will seek more cooperation without compromising the needs or interests of their respective clients. Overall, with the right attitude on the part of all, the civil justice system will become more responsive to the needs of all litigants and the strengths of Hong Kong's courts will be enhanced.

Lester Huang
The President of The Law Society of Hong Kong

隨著民事司法制度改革的實行
律師需要調整態度以作出配合

期待已久的民事司法制度改革終於到來。改革建議的提出始於2001年，就甚麼對香港構成最大利益而進行的研究、公眾諮詢，以及隨後的立法工作等均已全部完成。律師會一如司法機構及大律師公會般，為會員們提供了廣泛的機會予會員裝備自已迎接變革的來臨，而現時餘下唯一要做的事情以確保新制度實施能帶來預期的效益，便是所有利益攸關者在態度上所須作出的調整。

如今所有的訴訟律師將會運用新訂立的規則，而他們將需要充分提醒自己，必須遵行該等載於Order 1A的有關規則中的基本目標。相關規則所作的修訂，反映了新的成功定義，並提供了一個新的架構以實現內含於我們的法院訴訟中的基本價值。

在我們的社會中，民事訴訟程序是司法的核心。即使我們擁有最傑出的法官，最華麗的法院大樓，以及最強而有力的權利保障，但最重要的，還是為普羅大眾提供適當的爭議解決途徑。我們的現行法律制度是成熟的，主要是參照英國所建立的發達法律制度，並已發展了超過一個世紀。英國的民事司法制度改革，由前首席法官伍爾夫勳爵所領導。它識別了英國法院制度存在的缺陷，並在數年前制訂了全面性的改革方案。

在我們所察覺的存在於香港法律制度的缺點中，其中一項是：我們的制度不必要地變得過於對抗性，訴訟變得極為繁複，案件的延誤情況亦不斷累積，為法院的工作日程帶來壓力，而訴訟方亦感受到被迫尋求無止境的非正審申請。所有這些，均導致訴訟人感到整個運作過程是過於耗費，更有一些人認為這個制度只是方便了律師。同樣，這些缺點當中很多在英國也存在，亦為伍爾夫勳爵所察覺。

正如英國，我們的制度也作出了重大的變更，但我們並沒有完全跟隨英國的做法。現在我們所實施的改革，是在慮及我們的現行制度的前題下，從英國實施的改革中擇善而從之，這是在進行了廣泛的諮詢後所達致的結果，而在司法機構制定有關建議的過程中，律師會乃扮演了相當積極的角色。

改革內容中的一個重大的變化，是法官角色的改變。法官現時不再只是作為一名中立和被動的仲裁人，讓訴訟各方提出其認為合適的理據。法官現時被授予的職責，是需要為案件帶來公正和與實情相稱的結果，而此舉使法官成為了案件的管理人。在過去，訴訟方的代表律師會聲稱其因為對案件有較深的了解，因而在朝向審訊的路途中，得以享有較多的發言權。在今天，律師必須執行新的任務，協助法官履行其作為案件管理人之職責。

我認為這個方向是正確的。法院的資源並非無限，假如我們認為要尋求案件的公正裁決，便不應在時間和費用等資源上作出太多考慮，這種看法實在是一種謬誤。相稱性和程序的經濟性等意識是非常重要的。因此，訴訟律師必須覺察到這一改變，並以嶄新的態度來為其當事人帶來正確的結果。他們不單須對其當事人負責，也應就時間和費用方面的公眾資源對法院負責。律師有責任正確地運用法院的資源，並向法官提供案件的有效和合理觀點，使法官能妥善地執行其工作。律師作為法院人員，其重要性從這一方面來看確實是有所加強。

訴訟律師及訴訟人亦須謹記，有關的規則要求他們在整宗案件的處理過程中，必須積極地考慮採用爭議解決機制。雖然關於調解的實務指示於2010年1月1日才生效，但Order 1A的條文並沒有延緩實施。因此，促進爭議和解的職責，仍是相關規則的基本目標，並應繼續尋求機會，完全或甚至部分地解決在實質或程序上的問題。訴訟律師在這方面將需要建立一個新的態度，放棄以堅持或保障當事人權利為名而不肯妥協地盲目攻擊對方的做法。

此舉可能會令一些當事人不滿，他們會認為假如要求進行談判，便是意味其代表律師有棄守的跡象。這一種看法是錯誤的。法院不久便會向不合理地拒絕考慮明智和解建議的當事人作出訟費懲處。在當事人邁向和解的過程中，假如律師不論基於任何原因而從中加以阻撓，他便將要自食其果-對於違反規則所訂立之目標的律師，法庭可以向其施加訟費懲處。

調解是在法庭以外的解決爭議選項，而我對實行調解是表示支持的。透過調解所取得的成果，往往可能超過法官藉命令或判決的頒發而取得的成果。在調解過程中，律師扮演著一個特定的角色﹕或是作為調解的代訟人；或是作為一名調解員。律師會將會調撥更多資源來向會員提供協助，包括為他們提供適合進行調解的地方，以及在調解的各個方面為他們提供更多培訓。
英國進行的伍爾夫改革，並沒有促使訴訟費用的下調。我並沒有印象曾有任何的改革是以降低法律費用為其中一個目標。事實上，改革意味著，在某些案件中可能會涉及更多的費用，而這是因為在法庭程序的早期階段，便有需要投入更多的準備功夫。律師會曾經指出，這種在案件的處理上出現的前期吃重情況，對一些訴訟人而言，會為他們帶來經濟負擔。

然而，假如我們從建設性的角度來看這一方面所作的改革，由於額外的工作已經在前期被承擔，這可以令訴訟各方更了解他們在案件方面所具備的實力和不足之處，亦可促使律師能夠就該案件的成功機會及訴訟費用提供意見。這些資料對訴訟人而言均十分重要，他們需要在全情投入其訴訟之前，預先知悉所須承擔的費用。我們都知道，確有一些人被訴訟佔去了他們全部的生活，特別是當與其經濟利益相關時。

當事人也應了解到為了進行談判，而於早期對案件進行分析的好處。他們無法在並不知悉自己的實際境況下進行恰當的談判。在案件處理上的前期吃重，可令各方能夠就進行和解還是繼續訴訟作出明智的決定。從這一方面看，當事人因著在前期工作中的付出，得以在隨後的訴訟過程中取得額外的收益。

民事司法制度改革，應確保案件交付審訊的時間尺度得以更為縮短及更為明確。現時一個予人的即時印象是：訴訟是同樣地複雜。但隨著時間的過去，當訴訟律師對有關規則越來越熟悉時，他們便能夠更流暢地處理其案件，而複雜性亦會減低。假如律師能在態度上作出調整，這將可令訴訟所蘊含的對抗色彩減少，因為他們會在不損害其當事人的需要或利益情況下，尋求與對方進行更多合作。整體而言，假如所有人都持守著正確的態度，則民事司法制度改革將會變得更能對所有訴訟人的需要作出回應，而香港法院的力量亦將會因此而加強。

黃嘉純
香港律師會會長