Every time the main text says "see Appendix A" for a rule, you can find the rule number, the original sentence, the link and the label here. The label column copies the judgement the main text has already made; nothing is re-judged here — this appendix only gives the source line behind that judgement, so you can check it and show the original wording to the firm's partner or compliance officer. What the three labels mean: see → General Edition 0.4 The three labels for compliance sentences, and the stop-and-escalate rule. The Law Firms Edition adds two rules on how the labels are applied: Practice Directions (PD) and Guidance Notes (GN) issued by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore are the regulator's own words in black and white, so they count as Statute text — but where the original wording uses "should", "advisable" or "good practice", we quote it as written and say plainly that it is advice; where the current rules do not prohibit something and we go ahead on that basis, we label it Original text not obtained, always followed by the fixed sentence "no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: …; check date: 2026-09-29)" — to the client, say only "we found no rule that prohibits it", never "the rules allow it".
What we read and what we did not read (check date 2026-09-29):
- What we read: SSO's provision-by-provision pages for the PCR, the Legal Profession Act, its three subsidiary rules, the FJA and the CYPA. A direct command-line connection to SSO was blocked every time by the site's firewall and redirected to a verification page; this round we cleared the check with a real browser and then pulled the text provision by provision, taking the version from each instrument's timeline, and every page showed "Current version as at 29 Sep 2026". The 12 PDs and 2 GNs on the Law Society's ethics page were redownloaded from the original links, compared word for word, with the date on each one checked. The current Specialist Accreditation page of the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL), SAL's Marketing Your Accreditation guide and its Family Law accreditation documents: SAL's website has a human-verification check, and this round we used a real browser to get the current versions; the archived copies are used only to compare against earlier editions. The Law Society's "Find A Featured Lawyer/Law Firm" directory page, its Practice Excellence Awards page and the "Search for a Lawyer or Law Practice" page of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) were read on 2026-09-29 itself. We also read the revoked Publicity Rules in full, the Law Gazette article on online publicity from August 2012, and the Law Society's Ethics Resources Factsheet page.
- What we did not read: the more than 100 pieces of written ethics guidance the Advisory Committee has issued since 2015, and the 2019 and 2020 Ethics Digests, in the Law Society's members' area — the download links returned a login page; the rate-card terms for the Law Society's paid directory — the original page returns 404; and the remaining items in the "Original texts we could not get" table at the end of A.6. This batch of members'-area documents may contain case-specific rulings on website fee pages or client reviews, and is the main margin behind the 75% confidence in the side decision: before the first law-firm client's work starts, ask that firm to export them using a members' account — this is one step in the pre-work checklist.
Source links (the URL column in the table below gives only the short name plus the provision-page suffix ?ProvIds=prN-; append it to the matching address below to get the link): the PCR is the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015), sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/LPA1966-S706-2015, current version 04 May 2022 (Amended by S 334/2022); the LPA is the Legal Profession Act 1966 sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/LPA1966, current version 17 Apr 2025 (Amended by Act 37 of 2023); the LPE Rules is the Legal Profession (Law Practice Entities) Rules 2015 (S 699/2015) sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/LPA1966-S699-2015, current version 11 Oct 2024 (Amended by S 776/2024); the RI Rules is the Legal Profession (Regulated Individuals) Rules 2015 (S 701/2015) sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/LPA1966-S701-2015, current version 11 Oct 2024 (Amended by S 777/2024); the CFA Regulations is the Legal Profession (Conditional Fee Agreement) Regulations 2022 (S 333/2022) sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/LPA1966-S333-2022, 04 May 2022, not amended; the FJA is the Family Justice Act 2014 sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/FJA2014, current version 15 Oct 2024; the CYPA is the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CYPA1993, as at 29 Sep 2026 (s 112's note to (1A) wef 15/10/2024). The Law Society's PDs and GNs are listed at the start of A.3; the revoked Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules (R 13, 2010 RevEd) sso.agc.gov.sg/SL-Rev/161-R13/Published/20100531?DocDate=20100531 was revoked by PCR r 51(b) and is used only to trace the history.
A.1 PCR 2015: publicity, confidentiality, fees, titles
What you'll do in this section: when the main text cites a PCR rule number, come to this table by that number to check the original sentence, the link and the label; once checked, use it as is — do not re-judge here whether the ban holds. Where the label says Original text not obtained plus the fixed sentence, that is something the current rules do not prohibit and we go ahead on that basis; never describe it to the client as "the rules allow it".
The PCR are the professional conduct rules that the Professional Conduct Council made under LPA s 71(2). The publicity rules sit mainly in Part 5 (r 37–49); alongside them are r 6 on confidentiality, r 17–19 on fees and r 33 on titles. Part 5 governs lawyers and law firms, not us: for every piece we write or publish for a firm, the lawyer is responsible as for their own publicity (r 42(1)); the criminal liability we carry ourselves sits in the LPA and the family-law provisions — see A.2, A.4.
| Rule number | Original sentence | URL | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r 2(1), "publicity" | "“publicity” means any form of advertisement, and includes any advertisement that —(a) is printed or contained in any medium for the communication of information; or (b) appears in, or is communicated through or retrievable from, any mass medium (electronic or otherwise) or the Internet, and “publicise”, “publicised” and “publicising” are to be construed accordingly;" GN 6.1.1 para 30 states the same: "Publicity conducted through the Internet is subject to Part 5 of the PCR 2015" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr2- | Statute text | 0.2, 2.4, 3.4 |
| r 3(7) who Part 5 governs | "Part 5 applies —(a) to the following legal practitioners: (i) every solicitor who has in force a practising certificate or is registered under section 36F of the Act; (ii) every person admitted under section 15 of the Act; (iii) every foreign lawyer who is registered under section 36B of the Act; (b) to every Singapore law practice; and (c) to the following law practices, in connection with the practice of Singapore law: (i) every Joint Law Venture; (ii) every Formal Law Alliance; (iii) every Qualifying Foreign Law Practice; (iv) every licensed foreign law practice." Note: the second half of (a)(i) quotes LPA s 36F, which has been repealed (SSO: "36F. [Repealed by Act 22 of 2018]"), so the "registered under section 36F" half is now empty; the first half still covers a lawyer holding a valid practising certificate | PCR ?ProvIds=pr3- | Statute text | 0.2 |
| r 6(2), 6(3)(a) confidentiality and client authorisation | "(2) … a legal practitioner must not knowingly disclose any information which —(a) is confidential to his or her client; and (b) is acquired by the legal practitioner … in the course of the legal practitioner’s engagement. (3) A legal practitioner may disclose any information referred to in paragraph (2), if —(a) the client referred to in paragraph (2) authorises the disclosure;" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr6- | Statute text; confirming that someone is or was the firm's client is itself confidential information: Conservative line (not statute text) (80% confidence) | 1.4, 1.5, 5.15, 6.5, B.2 |
| r 15A(2)(b) duty to encourage amicable resolution | "from the time those proceedings are contemplated, and whenever it is reasonably possible, advise the client to consider resolving those proceedings amicably; and" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr15A- | Statute text (a practising duty to the client, not a publicity provision); in family-law content, do not write copy that plays up conflict, such as "fight it all the way" or "make the other side pay": Conservative line (not statute text) (65% confidence) | 1.7, 5.7 |
| r 17(3), r 18, r 18A fee disclosure, contingency fees and the CFA exception | r 17(3): "A legal practitioner must —(a) inform his or her client of the basis on which fees for professional services will be charged, and of the manner in which those fees and disbursements (if any) are to be paid by the client; (b) inform the client of any other reasonably foreseeable payments that the client may have to make, either to the legal practitioner or to any other party, and of the stages at which those payments are likely to be required; …" ((c)(d) separately require an estimate on request and say the final bill must not depart materially from it). r 18: "A legal practitioner or law practice must not enter into any negotiations with a client …—(a) for an interest in the subject matter of litigation or of any other contentious proceedings; or (b) except to the extent permitted by any applicable scale of costs, for remuneration proportionate to the amount which may be recovered by the client in the proceedings." r 18A (S 334/2022, wef 04/05/2022): "(1) Rules 17 and 18 do not prevent a legal practitioner or law practice from doing either or both of the following: (a) entering into negotiations for, or entering into, a conditional fee agreement that complies with Part 8A of the Act; …" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr17-, pr18-, pr18A- | Statute text (r 17(3) is a duty to inform the client at the time of engagement; it belongs in the letter of engagement and is not a publicity provision, so it shows only that publishing "a range plus billing method" points the same way as the lawyer's own duty) | 1.2, 5.20 |
| r 19 no fee-sharing with non-lawyers | "(1) A legal practitioner must not share the legal practitioner’s fees with, or pay a commission to, any unauthorised person for any legal work performed by the legal practitioner. (2) A law practice must not share its fees with, or pay a commission to, any unauthorised person for any legal work performed by the law practice." Note: we are an unauthorised person within the meaning of r 2(1); any marketing fee charged as a percentage of legal fees or a share of the case puts the firm itself in breach | PCR ?ProvIds=pr19- | Statute text | 0.2, 6.1, 6.2 |
| r 32 supervising staff | "A legal practitioner must, regardless of the legal practitioner’s designation in a law practice, exercise proper supervision over the staff working under the legal practitioner in the law practice." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr32- | Statute text | 6.1 |
| r 33(1)–(4) the approved list of titles | r 33(1): "A legal practitioner who is an advocate and solicitor must not describe himself or herself in connection with his or her profession as anything other than —(a) an advocate and solicitor; (b) a lawyer; (c) a legal consultant (if qualified to be one); (d) a Commissioner for Oaths (if appointed as one); (e) a Notary Public (if appointed as one); or (f) such other description as may be approved by the Council from time to time." r 33(2)–(4): a foreign lawyer may only be called "a foreign lawyer", "a legal consultant (if qualified to be one)" or a description the Council has approved; "Paragraph (1) does not prevent a Senior Counsel appointed under section 30 of the Act from describing himself or herself … as a Senior Counsel." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr33- | Statute text; "Divorce Specialist" or "Family Law Expert" used as a title (under the name, on a business card, in a directory's title field): Conservative line (not statute text) (75% confidence) | 1.6, 3.2 |
| r 37 dignity | "A legal practitioner must not engage in publicity, or procure any work or engagement for himself or herself, the law practice in which he or she practises or any other person, in circumstances which affect the dignity and standing of the legal profession." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr37- | Statute text | 1.1 |
| r 39(1), 39(2)(b) touting and consideration for a referral | r 39(1): "A legal practitioner or law practice must not tout for business or do anything which is likely to lead to a reasonable inference that the thing was done for the purpose of touting." ("tout" is not defined in the PCR). r 39(2): "Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), where there is reason to believe that a client is referred to a legal practitioner or law practice by any other person, the legal practitioner or law practice — … (b) must not reward the referror by the payment of any commission or other form of consideration;" (the same paragraph also has (a), (c)–(g): stay independent, do not let the referral affect the advice, confirm instructions directly with the client, and so on) | PCR ?ProvIds=pr39- | Statute text (the ban covers more than commission; any form of consideration counts); paying a fixed fee to join a referral or matching platform also counts as "other form of consideration": Conservative line (not statute text) (80% confidence) | 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 |
| r 40(1)(c) conveyancing-referral agreements | "any publicity of the referror (whether written or otherwise), which refers to any service that may be provided by the legal practitioner or law practice, must not suggest any of the following: (i) that the conveyancing service is free; (ii) that different charges are payable for the conveyancing service, depending on whether the client instructs the legal practitioner or law practice; (iii) …" This governs conveyancing referrals only; PD 7.4.3 D.2 extends the same requirements to motor-accident and personal-injury referrals (see A.3) | PCR ?ProvIds=pr40- | Statute text | 6.2 |
| r 41 publicising the firm | "Subject to these Rules, a legal practitioner may —(a) publicise the legal practitioner’s practice, or the practice of a law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee; or (b) allow the employees of the law practice to do so." Note: (b) only lets the firm's own employees publicise for the firm; it is not the basis for an outside agency publishing on its behalf | PCR ?ProvIds=pr41- | Statute text | 0.2, 6.1 |
| r 42(1)–(4) publicity done for you still counts as yours; correction; take-down; the Law Society's armorial bearings | r 42(1): "A legal practitioner must ensure that any publicity relating to the legal practitioner’s practice complies with these Rules, whether that publicity is by the legal practitioner or by any other person on the legal practitioner’s behalf." r 42(2): "Where a legal practitioner becomes aware of any impropriety in any publicity relating to the legal practitioner’s practice …, the legal practitioner must use the legal practitioner’s best endeavours to procure the rectification or withdrawal of the publicity, and to prevent the recurrence of the impropriety." (with the ellipsis filled in, the subject reads "the legal practitioner’s practice or the practice of a law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director or a partner": the duty to procure rectification or withdrawal falls only on the practitioner personally and on the firm's directors and partners, not on employed lawyers). r 42(3): "Where the Council determines that any publicity relating to the practice of a legal practitioner or law practice is contrary to any provision of these Rules, the Council may order the legal practitioner or law practice to alter, withdraw, remove or discontinue the publicity or cause the publicity to be altered, withdrawn, removed or discontinued." r 42(4): "A legal practitioner or law practice must ensure that any publicity relating to the practice of the legal practitioner or law practice does not make use of the armorial bearings of the Society." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr42- | Statute text; publishing on a firm's behalf: Original text not obtained: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full; check date: 2026-09-29), 85% confidence, on the basis that the wording of r 42(1) already assumes a case of publication by "any other person on the legal practitioner’s behalf"; applying r 42(2) to an entry a third party posts on its own initiative in a directory or a best-of list: Conservative line (not statute text) (65% confidence) | 0.2, 1.1, 3.4, 6.1 |
| r 43(1)(a), 43(2) expertise must be justified; the seven factors | r 43(1)(a): "When a legal practitioner publicises the legal practitioner’s practice or the practice of a law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee, the legal practitioner must ensure that —(a) any claim to expertise or specialisation can be justified;" r 43(2): "For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the following factors may be taken into account in justifying any claim to expertise or specialisation: (a) academic qualifications; (b) experience; (c) proportion of working time involved; (d) level of success achieved; (e) complexity of law and practice; (f) significance of the matters involving the legal practitioner or the law practice …; (g) assessment by peers." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr43- | Statute text | 1.6, 3.2, 3.3, 5.22, B.4 |
| r 43(1)(b)(i)(ii) past cases, success rate | "(b) the publicity does not make any direct or indirect mention of —(i) any past case in which, or any client for whom, the legal practitioner, the law practice or any member of the law practice had acted, if the provision of any such information will result in a breach of any duty of confidentiality owed to a client or former client of the legal practitioner or law practice; or (ii) the success rate of the legal practitioner, the law practice or any member of the law practice;" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr43- | Statute text (the success-rate item has no exception at all in the original wording) | 1.4, 5.8, 5.15, 5.21, 6.4 |
| r 43(1)(c) no comparing fees or quality with peers | "(c) the publicity does not make any comparison or criticism in relation to the fees charged, or the quality of the services provided, by any other legal practitioner or law practice." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr43- | Statute text (comparing fees or service quality with a peer: whether the peer is named, can be identified, or appears in the same table or passage as the firm's own price, it falls under this sentence, and so do "cheapest", "lower than other firms" and "market rate is X, ours is Y"); an unnamed market range in a sentence of its own, with no firm price beside it, is not written either: Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence; the original "any other" does not require naming); calling yourself No. 1, top or best: Conservative line (not statute text) (80% confidence, on the basis of this rule's implied quality comparison plus r 44(2)(c), information that cannot be verified) | 0.2, 1.3, 1.6, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.11 |
| r 43(3) a former lawyer appointed to the judiciary | "any publicity relating to the law practice must not refer to the legal practitioner’s appointment to the judiciary during the tenure of the legal practitioner’s judicial office;" (the name appearing as part of the firm's name is not restricted) | PCR ?ProvIds=pr43- | Statute text | 1.4 |
| r 43(4) touting is never permitted | "These Rules do not permit the doing of anything which may reasonably be regarded as touting by —(a) a legal practitioner; (b) a law practice; or (c) a director, a partner or an employee of a law practice." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr43- | Statute text | 6.4 |
| r 44(1)(a)(b)(c) misleading, dignity, an undesirable manner the Council determines | "A legal practitioner must not publicise … in a manner which —(a) is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or to otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute; (b) may reasonably be regarded as being misleading, deceptive, inaccurate, false or unbefitting the dignity of the legal profession; or (c) the Council may determine to be an undesirable manner of publicising the practice of a legal practitioner or law practice." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr44- | Statute text; discounts, limited-time framing, a promotional tone and an eye-catching price poster: Conservative line (not statute text) (60% confidence) | 1.1, 1.2 |
| r 44(2)(a)–(d) what counts as misleading | "For the purpose of these Rules, publicity is misleading, deceptive, inaccurate or false if —(a) it contains a material misrepresentation; (b) it omits to state a material fact; (c) it contains any information which cannot be verified; or (d) it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results that can be achieved by the legal practitioner or the law practice …" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr44- | Statute text | 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 |
| r 45(1)(2) sponsorship acknowledgements: names only | A lawyer may donate, sponsor or give free services, and the recipient may acknowledge them publicly; the lawyer "must take reasonable steps to ensure" that the acknowledgement "does not state any information pertaining to the legal practitioner or law practice except —(a) in the case of a contribution made by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner’s name, the fact that the legal practitioner is a legal practitioner, and the name of the law practice …; and (b) in the case of a contribution made by a law practice, the name of the law practice." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr45- | Statute text (the duty is to take reasonable steps to ensure this, not a guaranteed outcome) | 5.20 |
| r 46 bringing the firm into a third party's own publicity | "Subject to the Act and these Rules —(a) a legal practitioner may allow the legal practitioner’s practice or the practice of the law practice of which the legal practitioner is a director, a partner or an employee; and (b) a law practice may allow its practice, to be publicised in, or in conjunction with, the publicity of any third party, whether or not the party is a client of the legal practitioner or law practice." Note: this rule governs a third party bringing the firm into its own publicity; it is not the basis for "an agency publishing under the firm's name" | PCR ?ProvIds=pr46- | Statute text | 6.3 |
| r 47(2)(3) free legal advice | When giving free legal advice at a legal aid clinic, only the lawyer's name, the fact that they are a lawyer and the firm's name may be made public; the lawyer must not "(a) distribute any of the legal practitioner’s business cards or any brochure, leaflet or pamphlet …; or (b) act for any person to whom the legal practitioner has given such free legal advice, unless the legal practitioner acts for that person in a pro bono capacity." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr47- | Statute text | 5.20 |
| r 48, r 49 where publicity counts as taking place | r 48: "(1) A legal practitioner may publicise … in a country other than Singapore, and where the legal practitioner does so, rules 43 to 47 do not apply. (2) … the legal practitioner must ensure that the publicity is not conducted in a manner that is contrary to the laws of that country." r 49: "(a) publicity is conducted in a jurisdiction in which the publicity is reasonably expected to be received or accessible in the normal course of events; and (b) publicity is not conducted in a jurisdiction if the receipt of the publicity in the jurisdiction is incidental." | PCR ?ProvIds=pr48-, pr49- | Statute text; a Chinese-language page that is ordinarily accessible in Singapore is still Singapore publicity, and r 43–47 still apply: Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence) | 5.3 |
A.2 The Legal Profession Act (LPA 1966) and subsidiary rules: practising, names, intermediary offences, penalties, contingency fees
What you'll do in this section: when you check practising eligibility, a firm's name and suffix, the intermediary offences we ourselves can commit, disciplinary penalties, and "no win no fee", come to this table to check the original sentence and the link. The three s 33 rows govern us, not lawyers: before drafting a price quotation, a contract or our own marketing material, check it against them.
There are two offences in the LPA that we ourselves can commit: s 33(3), placing a lawyer's services at someone's disposal for a fee, and s 33(1)(b), implying we are qualified to practise (the table below); the family-law provisions add CYPA s 112(5)(b) and FJA s 10(5) (A.4). Of these, s 33(3) governs directly how we may charge: for law-firm clients we charge only a fixed service fee, never per lead, per case, per signed client, or as a percentage of legal fees — charging in any of those ways, we may commit the offence under s 33(3); on the firm's side, paying as a percentage of legal fees or a share of the case breaches PCR r 19, and paying per lead or per signed client falls under r 39(2)(b); in our own sales and marketing material, we never write "our legal team", and we never say we offer "free legal consultation".
| Rule number | Original sentence | URL | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| s 30(1), (6) Senior Counsel | "A Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney‑General and the Justices of the Court of Appeal may appoint an advocate and solicitor … as Senior Counsel if the Selection Committee is of the opinion that, by virtue of the person’s ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law, he or she is deserving of such distinction." s 30(6): must have accumulated at least 10 years in total (paraphrased; which qualifications count towards those 10 years was not extracted word for word this round) | LPA ?ProvIds=pr30- | Statute text | 1.6, 3.2 |
| s 32(1) practising eligibility | "a person must not practise as an advocate and solicitor or do any act as an advocate and solicitor unless —(a) his or her name is on the roll of advocates and solicitors; and (b) he or she has in force a practising certificate." (the original opens with "Subject to this Part and Part 4A,") | LPA ?ProvIds=pr32- | Statute text | 0.2 |
| s 33(1)(b) a non-lawyer implying they may practise | "wilfully or falsely pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he or she is duly qualified or authorised to act as an advocate or a solicitor, or that he or she is recognised by law as so qualified or authorised," penalty: "a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both"; for a repeat offence, a fine of up to S$50,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment | LPA ?ProvIds=pr33- | Statute text (the offence itself and the penalty); wording such as "our legal team" or "free legal consultation by us" falls under this section: Conservative line (not statute text) (75% confidence) | 0.4, 6.1 |
| s 33(3)(4)(5) placing a lawyer's services at someone's disposal for a fee | "(3) Any unauthorised person who, for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward, offers or agrees to place at the disposal of any other person the services of an advocate and solicitor shall be guilty of an offence." (4): "Subsection (3) does not apply to any person who offers or agrees to place at the disposal of any other person the services of an advocate and solicitor pursuant to a lawful contract of indemnity or insurance." "(5) Every person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (2) or (3) shall be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months and for a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both." | LPA ?ProvIds=pr33- | Statute text; running a firm's marketing for a fixed monthly fee does not amount to "place at the disposal": Original text not obtained: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: all of LPA s 33; check date: 2026-09-29), 70% confidence; we found no case law or guidance confirming it | 0.2, 6.1 |
| s 33(6)(7)(7A)(8) separate penalties for the corporation, its directors, employees and partners | "(6) Any act done by a body corporate which in the case of a person would be an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) … shall be an offence and the body corporate shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $25,000 and for a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding $50,000. (7) Where an act mentioned in subsection (6) is done by a director, an officer or an employee of the body corporate, the director, officer or employee shall (without affecting the liability of the body corporate) be liable to the punishments provided in subsection (5)." (7A): an LLP's partners, officers and employees are separately liable in the same way (paraphrased). (8): "Where any firm does an act which in the case of a person would be an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3), every member of the firm is deemed to have committed that offence unless he or she proves that he or she was unaware of the commission of the act." | LPA ?ProvIds=pr33- | Statute text | 6.1 |
| s 71(7)(9) the legal force of PDs | s 71(7): the PCR prevails over "any practice directions, guidance notes and rulings (relating to professional practice, etiquette, conduct and discipline) issued by the Council or the Society"; s 71(9): these documents "continue in force until they are revoked". Separately: PCR r 44(1)(c) bans the manner of publicising that "the Council may determine to be an undesirable manner of publicising", and PD 6.2.2 B is a determination made under that limb (original wording: see A.1, A.3) | LPA ?ProvIds=pr71- | Statute text | 0.2, 1.1 |
| s 75D "Consultant" requires 10 years | "a solicitor must not take or use the title of consultant unless he or she has, for a period of not less than 10 years in the aggregate, been —(a) a solicitor in practice; …" "(2) Any solicitor who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000." | LPA ?ProvIds=pr75D- | Statute text | 1.6 |
| s 78(1)(e) must not employ anyone on the touts list | A lawyer must not employ anyone on the Family Justice Courts' touts list (FJA s 39, see A.4), nor pay them — paraphrased: the provision has been checked against SSO, but the original sentence was not extracted word for word this round | LPA ?ProvIds=pr78- | Statute text (original sentence to be extracted before it is quoted) | 1.7 |
| s 83(1), (2)(b)(d)(e)(f), (7) disciplinary penalties and exemptions | s 83(1): "All advocates and solicitors are subject to the control of the Supreme Court and shall be liable on due cause shown —(a) to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors; (b) to be suspended from practice for a period not exceeding 5 years; (c) to pay a penalty of not more than $100,000; (d) to be censured; or (e) to suffer the punishment referred to in paragraph (c) in addition to the punishment referred to in paragraph (b) or (d)." Grounds include s 83(2)(b)(i): breaching a rule made under s 71, amounting to improper conduct (paraphrased). s 83(2): "(d) has tendered or given or consented to retention, out of any fee payable to him or her for his or her services, of any gratification for having procured the employment in any legal business of himself or herself, of any other advocate and solicitor …; (e) has, directly or indirectly, procured or attempted to procure the employment of himself or herself, of any advocate and solicitor … through or by the instruction of any person to whom any remuneration for obtaining such employment has been given by him or her or agreed or promised to be so given; (f) has accepted employment in any legal business through a person who has been proclaimed a tout under any written law relating thereto;" s 83(7): "The Minister may make rules for the exemption from subsection (2)(d) or (e) …" | LPA ?ProvIds=pr83- | Statute text (checking the full table of the LPA's current subsidiary legislation on SSO on 2026-09-29 found no exemption rules made under s 83(7): there is no exception available for consideration paid for a referral) | 0.2, 6.2 |
| s 85(1) complaints | "Any complaint of the conduct of a regulated legal practitioner —(a) must be made to the Society in writing; …" (1)(b)(c) separately require the complainant to state whether a complaint on the same facts already exists, and to attach the statutory declaration the Council requires (paraphrased) | LPA ?ProvIds=pr85- | Statute text (the threshold is a written complaint plus a statutory declaration; a peer may complain) | 0.4 |
| s 88(1)(4)(5) Council penalties and Gazette notices | The Council may "give him or her a warning, reprimand him or her or order him or her to pay a penalty of not more than $10,000"; a penalty or a reprimand triggers the duty to "publish in the Gazette a notice", and the notice "must contain the name of the regulated legal practitioner, the nature of the misconduct committed by him or her and the penalty" | LPA ?ProvIds=pr88- | Statute text (only a penalty order and a reprimand go in the Gazette; a warning does not) | 0.2 |
| s 107(1)(b), (3AA); s 115B(1), (4)(b) payment only on success, and CFAs | s 107(1)(b): "A solicitor must not — … (b) enter into any agreement by which he or she is retained or employed to prosecute any suit or action or other contentious proceeding which stipulates for or contemplates payment only in the event of success in that suit, action or proceeding." s 107(3AA): "This section does not prevent a solicitor from entering into a conditional fee agreement that complies with Part 8A." s 115B(1): "A solicitor, a foreign lawyer or a law practice entity may make with a client a conditional fee agreement in relation to remuneration or costs in prescribed proceedings." s 115B(4)(b): "the conditional fee agreement must not provide for the remuneration or costs to be payable as a percentage or proportion of the amount of damages or other amounts awarded to or recovered by the client in any contentious proceedings;" | LPA ?ProvIds=pr107-, pr115B- | Statute text | 1.2 |
| s 131(1), s 138, s 153 firm licensing and name approval | "A solicitor who wishes to practise on his or her own account, or to have a partnership (not being a limited liability partnership) licensed as a law firm, must apply to the Director of Legal Services for —(a) the issue of a law firm licence to his or her practice or the partnership (as the case may be); and (b) the approval of the name or proposed name of his or her practice or the partnership (as the case may be)." (s 138 mirrors this for an LLP, s 153 for an LLC, both in Part 9A of the LPA) | LPA ?ProvIds=pr131-, pr138-, pr153- | Statute text | 0.2, 3.1 |
| s 132(2) a name change needs approval | "No name of a law firm may be changed without the prior written approval of the Director of Legal Services." | LPA ?ProvIds=pr132- | Statute text | 3.1 |
| s 139(2), s 154(4) the limited-liability statement | s 139(2): "The partners of a limited liability law partnership must ensure that every invoice or official correspondence of the limited liability law partnership bears the statement that it is incorporated with limited liability." s 154(4) carries the same wording for a law corporation | LPA ?ProvIds=pr139-, pr154- | Statute text (invoices and official correspondence); extending it to a website footer: Conservative line (not statute text) (50% confidence, since the original does not mention publicity) | 3.1, B.2 |
| s 154(3) the LLC suffix | "Every law corporation must have either the words “Law Corporation” or the acronym “LLC” as part of its name; and no person, firm or group practice other than a law corporation may have those words or that acronym as part of the name of the person, firm or group practice." | LPA ?ProvIds=pr154- | Statute text | 1.6, 2.4, 3.1, 5.4 |
| LPE Rules r 6(1), r 9, r 10 the firm's name | r 6(1): a name must not "(a) is misleading or detracts from the dignity of the legal profession; (b) is so similar to the name of another law practice entity … as to be likely to be confused …" r 9: "the name of a law firm must not consist of any acronym or solely of initials" (an acronym may be used in a logo). r 10: "(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the name of a law firm must not contain any words which are descriptive of the services provided by, or the areas of practice of, the law firm. (2) The words “A Law Firm” or “Advocates and Solicitors” may appear immediately after the name of a law firm." (r 10 governs only "law firm"; LLP's r 15 and LLC's r 29 have no such ban on descriptive wording) | LPE ?ProvIds=pr6-, pr9-, pr10- | Statute text | 3.1 |
| LPE Rules r 7, r 15(1), r 29(1) English registration; a Chinese name needs approval | r 7: "The name of a law firm must be stated in the English language; but the name may, with the approval in writing of the Director of Legal Services, also be stated in any of the other official languages." (r 15(1) carries the same wording for an LLP, r 29(1) for an LLC) | LPE ?ProvIds=pr7- | Statute text; on a Chinese-language page, a Chinese business profile or a Chinese directory listing, use only the approved Chinese firm name, and the approved English name where none has been approved: Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence) | 1.6, 3.1, 5.3 |
| LPE Rules r 8(2) a name in the firm's name must match the practising certificate | "The name or part of the name of any existing sole proprietor or existing partner of a law firm which is to constitute the name of the law firm must be in accordance with the name of that sole proprietor or partner that appears in the practising certificate of that sole proprietor or partner at the time of the application under section 131(1) of the Act." | LPE ?ProvIds=pr8- | Statute text | 3.2 |
| LPE Rules r 43(3), r 50(1), r 57(1), r 59(1) group-practice wording and foreign law practices | r 43(3): "A Singapore law practice which is not a member of a Singapore group practice must not describe itself as a Singapore group practice." r 50(1): excluded from "permitted areas of legal practice" are "(a) constitutional and administrative law; (b) conveyancing; (c) criminal law; (d) family law; (e) succession law …; (f) trust law, in any case where the settlor is an individual; (g) appearing or pleading in any court in Singapore …" r 57(1): "A Qualifying Foreign Law Practice must not practise Singapore law except —(a) in the permitted areas of legal practice; and (b) through a solicitor registered under section 36E of the Act, or a foreign lawyer registered under section 36B of the Act …" r 59(1): "(a) may practise Singapore law only in relation to a relevant agreement; and (b) must not practise Singapore law except through a solicitor registered under section 36E of the Act, or a foreign lawyer registered under section 36B …" ("relevant agreement" means an arbitration agreement or an agreement containing one, r 59(14)) | LPE ?ProvIds=pr43-, pr50-, pr57-, pr59- | Statute text; a foreign-law-practice page must not imply it can handle Singapore family, succession or criminal matters: Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence) | 0.1 (scope), 1.7 |
| RI Rules r 11(1)(2) Foreign Law Consultant | r 11(1): "a foreign lawyer who is a consultant of a Singapore law practice —(a) may take or use the title of foreign law consultant; but (b) must not take or use the title of consultant." r 11(2): a foreign lawyer must have accumulated at least 10 years to be a foreign law consultant (paraphrased) | RI Rules ?ProvIds=pr11- | Statute text | 1.6 |
| CFA Regulations 2022 reg 3 proceedings a CFA may cover | Limited to: "(a) arbitration proceedings …; (b) proceedings before a court … arising from or out of or in any way connected with any arbitration proceedings …; (c) application for a stay of proceedings …; (d) proceedings for or in connection with the enforcement of an award …; (e) … similar or equivalent … outside Singapore; (f) mediation proceedings arising out of … (a), (b), (d) or (e) …; (g) proceedings commenced in the Singapore International Commercial Court …; (h) appeal proceedings arising from … the Singapore International Commercial Court …; (i) mediation proceedings arising out of the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (g) or (h)." | CFA Regulations ?ProvIds=pr3- | Statute text (family law is not on the list) | 1.2 |
A.3 Law Society Council Practice Directions (PD) and Guidance Notes (GN)
What you'll do in this section: when the main text cites a PD or GN number, use this table to check the original sentence and the issue date; where the original is advisory wording (should, advisable, good practice), say "this is the Council's advice" when the main text quotes it; do not present it as a ban. The original sentence for the PD 3.11.2 row was not extracted this round; until it is obtained, the main text cites only the document name.
All 12 PDs and 2 GNs were downloaded afresh, one by one, from their original links on the Law Society's ethics page lawsociety.org.sg/ethics-professional-conduct/ on 2026-09-29, and every issue date was checked. The PDs and GNs in category 6 of the ethics page (Publicity and Media Related Matters) are exactly the eight documents numbered 6.x in the table below, and there are no others; and none of them deals specifically with client reviews, Google reviews, third-party rankings or paid awards. Why a PD is binding: LPA s 71(7)–(9) plus PCR r 44(1)(c) (see A.2), not r 38(c)(iv) or r 34(1)(f)(iv) — those two only cover a lawyer's other business activities and holding executive office.
PDF addresses (prefix lawsociety.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/; wherever the URL column below gives a PD or GN number, it points here): PD 6.1.1 2020/03/26.-Media-Comments-and-Internet_Social-Media-Posts-PD-6.1.1.pdf (31 January 2019); PD 6.1.2 2020/03/60.-Referrals_Hyperlinking-of-Websites-PD-6.1.2.pdf (1 June 2018); GN 6.1.1 2020/03/121.-Ethics-and-Information-Technology-GN-6.1.1.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 6.2.1 2020/03/66.-Advertisement-and-Media-Publicity-PD-6.2.1.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 6.2.2 2020/03/74.-Distribution-of-Flyers-or-Leaflets-PD-6.2.2.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 6.2.3 2020/03/76.-Identification-of-Legal-Practitioners-or-Law-Practices-PD-6.2.3.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 6.2.4 2020/03/67.-Publicity-by-Legal-Practitioners-Through-Public-Appearances-and-Contributions-to-Publications-PD-6.2.4.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 6.2.5 2020/03/110.-Visiting-Cards-Legal-Practitioners-PD-6.2.5.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 3.5.2 2021/05/69.-Rule-33-of-the-Legal-Profession-Professional-Conduct-Rules-2015-.pdf (02 June 2020); PD 3.11.2 2020/03/24.-Work-Done-by-an-Unauthorised-Person-PD-3.11.2-1.pdf (1 June 2018); PD 5.2.1 2020/03/19.-Fee-Arrangements-with-Clients-PD-5.2.1.pdf (31 January 2019); PD 5.5.1 2020/03/25.-Sharing-of-Fees-Between-Legal-Practitioners-PD-5.5.1.pdf (31 January 2019); PD 7.4.3 2020/03/35.-Warrant-To-Act-Letter-of-Engagement-and-Referrals-from-Third-Parties-PD-7.4.3.pdf (31 January 2019); GN 5.6.1 2022/08/Guidance-Note-5.6.1-Conditional-Fee-Agreements.pdf (effective 1 August 2022).
| Document and paragraph | Original sentence | URL | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PD 6.1.1 (31 Jan 2019) social media and online remarks | Lawyers should observe "(c) to maintain confidentiality between legal practitioner and client; (d) to comply with the rules of professional conduct and publicity;" and (g) "to avoid adverse remarks on the conduct or character of the opposing party." Examples of improper remarks include "posts and/or comments: (a) in relation to on-going proceedings; (b) about clients, judges, opposing party and/or opposing counsel; (c) which disclose confidential information/personal data …"; the final paragraph: "Law practices are also reminded to adhere to standards imposed by the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 …" Throughout, the wording is "should observe", "good practice" | PD 6.1.1 | Statute text (the Council's advisory wording); applied to review replies (do not discuss the client, do not discuss the case, do not comment on the opposing party): Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence); the original text of the PDPA was not checked this round: Original text not obtained | 1.5, 6.5 |
| PD 6.1.2 (1 Jun 2018) hyperlinking between websites | Hyperlinks between websites "are not prohibited, provided there is no form of financial arrangement between the property agent and the law practice. However, the description of the hyperlink must not mislead viewers by suggesting that the property agent is in a position to give legal advice … or that the viewer has to exclusively use the services of the law practice." The final sentence: "Otherwise, this may constitute an offence under section 33(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)." | PD 6.1.2 | Statute text | 6.2 |
| GN 6.1.1 (1 Jun 2018) paras 11, 30, 31, 33–37 | Para 11 applies r 32's supervisory duty to a law firm's email policy (paraphrased). Para 30: "Publicity conducted through the Internet is subject to Part 5 of the PCR 2015". Para 31: "A law practice’s website can be used as an advertising tool or to provide generic legal information that can be accessed by the general public or clients of the law practice. If legal advice is given, a law practice must realise that it could give rise to attendant obligations and risks in law. A law practice may wish to, therefore, consider appropriate disclaimers." Para 35: "There are prohibitions against a law practice rewarding any person for referring work to them. The participation in any Internet referral schemes which requires the law practice to pay a fee or share fees paid for legal services referred would be a breach of the LPA." Para 36: "Even if no fees are paid or shared, any participation in an online introduction service or referral service carried out in such a way as to ‘unfairly attract work’ to the law practice would be improper given the terms of section 83(2)(b) and/or section 83(2)(h) of the LPA." Para 37: one law firm demanding a referral fee from another merely for referring a client counts as "brokering" | GN 6.1.1 | Statute text; what counts as "unfairly attract work": Conservative line (not statute text) (60% confidence); a pure advertising slot (listed by practice area, chosen by the reader, with no referral, no case assignment and no fee tied to outcome) paid for on a fixed rate card is not covered by para 35: Original text not obtained: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: GN 6.1.1 paras 33–37, PCR r 39, PD 6.1.2; check date: 2026-09-29), 70% confidence | 0.2, 5.9, 6.2 |
| PD 6.2.1 (1 Jun 2018) B, C press and TV advertisements and filmed footage | B: "Advertisements through the press or TV, unlike advertisements via the distribution of flyers in public places, would not be touting or be reasonably regarded as touting." C: under r 43(4), the law firm's name should not appear in footage it takes part in filming, though an acknowledgement in the end credits is fine (paraphrased) | PD 6.2.1 | Statute text; extending para B so that search ads and websites are not touting either: Original text not obtained: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR r 39, r 43(4), PD 6.2.1, PD 6.2.2; check date: 2026-09-29), 80% confidence | 6.4 |
| PD 6.2.1 D four misleading examples | Lead-in sentence: "A TV commercial may be reasonably regarded as misleading if:" The four examples: "(a) it contains a material misrepresentation (eg, representation that the practice is a leading family law practice when it does not have expertise or experience in family law); (b) it omits to state a material fact (eg, failure to state that the law practice only acts in uncontested divorce matters if the practice has no expertise or experience in contested divorce matters); (c) it contains any information which cannot be verified (eg, only a contact number is given without stating the name of the law practice); or (d) it is likely to create an unjustified expectation … (eg, stating that the law practice will be able to recover party and party costs in a civil matter)." Note: in (a), what is misleading is calling yourself leading when you have no family-law expertise; the word "leading" itself is not banned | PD 6.2.1 | Statute text (TV advertisements); applying the same standard to websites: Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence); by default, do not write "leading"; write it only when a tier of that same name in a third-party ranking backs it up: Conservative line (not statute text) (70% confidence) | 1.6, 3.1 |
| PD 6.2.1 D price lists and fee details | "A TV commercial is reasonably regarded as unbefitting the dignity of the legal profession under rule 44(1)(b) of the PCR 2015 if it suggests that other law practices overcharge their fees or sets out price lists. However, it is not improper for the commercial to refer generally to fixed fee arrangements to provide peace of mind and meet budgetary concerns." The third sentence, which follows immediately: "It is nevertheless advisable that, for proper compliance with rule 17 of the PCR 2015, a legal practitioner’s duty to disclose detailed information relating to fees would be best discharged by personally explaining it to the client as opposed to highlighting it in a brief TV advertisement." | PD 6.2.1 | Statute text (the dignity test for TV advertisements); the third sentence is the Council's advice (advisable), not a ban; applied to a firm's own fees page (no eye-catching price poster; state that the final fee is set out in the letter of engagement): Conservative line (not statute text) (60% confidence) | 1.2 |
| PD 6.2.1 E free advertising slots | Accepting a free newspaper advertisement "is not improper … so long as the law practice ensures that the advertising complies with rules 43 and 44 … In particular, the description of the specialisation of the law practice in the advertisement must be in accordance with rules 43(1)(a) and 43(2)" | PD 6.2.1 | Statute text | 6.4 |
| PD 6.2.2 (1 Jun 2018) A, B, C flyers, letterbox drops and a phone number only | A: distributing flyers in public places "can be an act which may be reasonably regard as touting under rule 43(4) …" (sic); "Direct, in-person solicitation would also be a breach of rule 39(1) of the PCR 2015." The same paragraph: "It is also permissible for the law practice to display the flyer and/or its contents on the law practice’s website." B: distributing promotional letters and business cards to HDB households "would be a breach of rules 44(1)(a) and 44(1)(c)". C: "Such publicity is reasonably regarded as being misleading (under rule 44(1)(b) of the PCR 2015 read with rule 44(2)(c) of the PCR 2015) as it contains information that cannot be verified … At the very least, the name of the law practice should be stated in the flyer." | PD 6.2.2 | Statute text (offline distribution, letterbox drops; para C concerns only a flyer that gives just "Legal Services" plus a phone number, and is worded with should); extending this to mass cold emails and private messages to prospective clients: Conservative line (not statute text) (75% confidence); extending it so that every piece of publicity carries the firm's name: Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence); "it must be the approved name, word for word": Conservative line (not statute text) (75% confidence, drawn from the name controls in s 132 and LPE Rules r 6–10, not this PD) | 0.2, 3.1, 3.4, 6.1 |
| PD 6.2.3 (1 Jun 2018) A, B the letterhead list and identifying foreign lawyers | A: letterhead may list only "(a) partners or directors of the law practice; and (b) consultants, foreign lawyers or legal associates employed by the law practice in accordance with Singapore’s legislative and regulatory requirements." (legal associates are employed lawyers, not paralegals). B: when a website, brochure or similar material lists a foreign lawyer not registered in Singapore, "The following wording would be the minimum necessary": “XYZ, qualified in [name of foreign jurisdiction] to practise [foreign law], not registered as a foreign lawyer practising in Singapore, not regulated by the Law Society of Singapore and not a member of the firm.” The final sentence: "Contravention of this illustration may reasonably be regarded as being misleading, deceptive, inaccurate or false publicity under rule 44(1) … read with rule 44(2)" | PD 6.2.3 | Statute text | 1.6, 3.2 |
| PD 6.2.4 (1 Jun 2018) A, B, C public appearances, talks and contributed articles | A: a lawyer "may be identified by name, the fact that he/she is a legal practitioner, and the name of the law practice … and particulars may be given of any special qualifications or specialised knowledge directly relevant to the subject-matter of the publication or appearance." B: a law firm holding a public talk at its own premises, advertising it and charging an entrance fee "is not improper … However, the law practice must ensure compliance with the PCR 2015 at all times." C: when a lawyer answers readers' questions in a non-legal publication, r 47 does not apply, the lawyer may be named, and "may therefore wish to include an appropriately worded disclaimer for the enquirer to seek independent legal advice before acting on any advice" | PD 6.2.4 | Statute text (para A is a positive list of which identity details may be shown); a byline on a contributed article with no contact details and no "enquiries welcome": Conservative line (not statute text) (70% confidence); the disclaimer in para C is advice, not an obligation | 6.4 |
| PD 6.2.5 (1 Jun 2018) business cards | A business card may list "(a) name; (b) name of the law practice; (c) address of the law practice; (d) telephone number(s) of the law practice; (e) telephone number(s) of the residence; and (f) academic qualifications."; "although the name of the law practice may be included on a visiting card, the description of the law practice may not be so included." | PD 6.2.5 | Statute text (business cards); extending this to the blurb field of a directory listing: Conservative line (not statute text) (50% confidence) | 3.2 |
| PD 3.5.2 (02 Jun 2020) r 33 designations | The Council has approved twenty designations in total: Sole Proprietor, Partner, Senior Partner, Managing Partner, Founding Partner, Legal Assistant, Associate, Senior Associate, Consultant, Senior Consultant, Counsel, Director, Managing Director, Senior Executive Director, Executive Director, Senior Associate Director, Associate Director, Chairman, Adviser, Senior Adviser; a director of a law corporation must add "advocate and solicitor" after the designation on their business card (a Council ruling in force since 12 January 2001); the designation on the business card of an executive support staff member "shall be stated in a manner as not to give the impression that he is a legal practitioner." | PD 3.5.2 | Statute text | 1.6, 3.2 |
| PD 3.11.2 (1 Jun 2018) work done by an unauthorised person | This round we checked only the document and its issue date; the original sentence was not extracted | PD 3.11.2 | Original text not obtained (original sentence still to be obtained; until then, 6.1 cites only the document name, not its content) | — (not cited in the main text; kept for reference only) |
| PD 5.2.1 (31 Jan 2019) C legal fees contingent on recovering costs | An arrangement of this kind "would render a solicitor in breach of section 107 of the LPA and rule 18 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 … because the solicitor would have an interest in the subject matter of the litigation"; a footnote cites a 2013 High Court decision ([2013] SGHC 135): acting for a client in financial hardship, knowing that the fees can be collected only if the case is won, is not itself a breach (paraphrased) | PD 5.2.1 | Statute text | 1.2 |
| PD 5.5.1 (31 Jan 2019) no referral fee for referrals between lawyers | "A mere referral should not result in any costs being demanded or expected by the legal practitioner referring the client to another legal practitioner. This would be tantamount to ‘brokering’ and should not be permitted or condoned." | PD 5.5.1 | Statute text | 6.2 |
| PD 7.4.3 (31 Jan 2019) D.2, E third-party referrals and the letter of engagement | D.2 extends r 40(1)(c)'s referral requirements to motor-accident and personal-injury referrals, and bars a lawyer from accepting money from the referror; D.2(b)(i): "accept from the referror the payment of commission, referral fee or any other form of consideration"; D.2(d)(i) mirrors r 40(1)(c)(i): it covers a referror's publicity suggesting that the service is free (paraphrased). E: recommends writing the fee disclosure required by r 17 into the letter of engagement (paraphrased; the original sentence was not extracted this round) | PD 7.4.3 | Statute text (the original sentence of D.2(b)(i)); para E is only paraphrased: obtain the original sentence before quoting it | 5.20, 6.2 |
| GN 5.6.1 (1 Aug 2022) paras 6 and 11–12, CFAs | "CFAs are not Contingency Fee Agreements, which are agreements where practitioners agree to accept an agreed percentage of the sum or damages recovered by a client. … Contingency Fee Agreements continue to be prohibited under Singapore law and should not be entered into." Forms of a CFA include "(i) “No win, no fee”; and (ii) “No win, less fee.”" | GN 5.6.1 | Statute text; writing "no win no fee" on a family-law page is itself misleading (it advertises an arrangement that cannot be entered into): Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence) | 1.2, 5.16 |
A.4 Family law only: private hearings, children's identity, amicable resolution, the touts list
What you'll do in this section: before writing any case study, case-law commentary, republished review, review reply or bylined submission for a family law firm, come to this table and check FJA s 10 and CYPA s 112. These two are statutory provisions: a partner's sign-off cannot release them, and they punish whoever publishes — including us.
Decided case by case, by sign-offNo sign-off releases these, or shields us from them (statutory provisions)
Whether to write up a family caseAnything that could identify a child involved in the proceedings
Whether to republish a family client's reviewStill not publishable once the child turns 18
How far a review reply can goAnything covered by a court's order restricting publication
How far client authorisation goes, and how confidentiality is judgedIf we publish it, the offence is ours, whether or not a lawyer signed it
Whether to write up a family case, whether to republish a client's review, and how far a review reply can go — this book decides these case by case, and each one needs a partner's or director's written sign-off. But a written sign-off resolves only the stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable: anything that could identify a child involved in the proceedings is not published (CYPA s 112), and family-proceedings content a court has restricted from publication is not published (FJA s 10) — no sign-off releases either one. So before any family case study, republished review or review reply goes for sign-off, it first goes through our own mandatory de-identification check (Appendix B.4's family self-check sheet): this is the step that strips hearing details down to legal points and procedure only, so nothing is left for a sign-off to release; any hit sends it back for rewriting, not to sign-off. A lawyer's signature does not take on our liability either: CYPA s 112(5)(b) punishes "the person who publishes or distributes it", and FJA s 10(5) punishes "Any person" — when we publish or repost, the one punished is us.
| Rule number | Original sentence | URL | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FJA 2014 s 10(1), heard in private | "Subject to subsection (2), all matters and proceedings in a Family Justice Court must be heard in private." | FJA ?ProvIds=pr10- | Statute text; applied to case-study pages and case-law commentary (writing only legal points and procedure, never hearing details that could be matched to a specific party): Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence) | 1.7, 5.5, 5.15 |
| FJA s 10(4)(a), (5), the order restricting publication and its penalty | (4): "A Family Justice Court may at any time order that no person is to —(a) publish the name, address or photograph of any witness in any matter or proceeding … or any evidence or any other thing likely to lead to the identification of any such witness;" (5): "Any person who acts in contravention of any order under subsection (3) or (4) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both." | FJA ?ProvIds=pr10- | Statute text ("Any person" includes us when publishing on the firm's behalf; no sign-off releases it) | 1.7, 5.5, 5.15 |
| FJA s 39(1), (6), the touts list and Gazette publication | (1): "The registrar of the Family Justice Courts may publish a list of persons proved to his or her satisfaction, by evidence of general repute or otherwise, to act as touts or unauthorised advisers to suitors or other persons, and may alter and amend the list." (6): "A copy of the list must be kept hung up in the Registry of the Family Justice Courts and must be published in the Gazette." A lawyer must not employ anyone on the list, or pay them (LPA s 78(1)(e), see A.2); taking on a matter through such a person is a ground for disciplinary action (LPA s 83(2)(f)) | FJA ?ProvIds=pr39- | Statute text | 1.7 |
| CYPA 1993 s 112(1)(a), (1)(c), the ban on publishing anything that could identify a child involved in the proceedings | (1)(a): "a person must not —(a) publish or broadcast any information relating to any proceedings in any court or on appeal from any court that reveals the name, address or school or that includes any particulars that are calculated to lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken or as being a witness therein;" (1)(c): publication is still not permitted once the child turns 18 (paraphrased; the original sentence was not extracted this round). The age definitions of "child" and "young person" are in CYPA s 2; not obtained this round | CYPA ?ProvIds=pr112- | Statute text (the rule itself; no sign-off releases it); that it covers custody and access proceedings in divorce cases: Conservative line (not statute text) (80% confidence, based on the original wording "any proceedings in any court" plus "in respect of whom the proceedings are taken"); the age definitions: Original text not obtained, read on the stricter side | 1.5, 1.7, 5.5, 5.15, B.4 |
| CYPA s 112(5)(b), (9), the publisher commits the offence; websites and messaging systems both count | (5): "If any information or picture is published or broadcast in contravention of subsection (1) — … (b) in the case of the publication of any information or picture otherwise than as part of a newspaper or periodical publication, the person who publishes or distributes it; … shall jointly be guilty of an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000." (9) defines "publish" to include "(a) the Internet or any website, web service or Internet application; or (b) any messaging system." | CYPA ?ProvIds=pr112- | Statute text (the party publishing on the firm's behalf is itself named as an offender: when we publish or repost, we are "the person who publishes or distributes it"; a lawyer's signature cannot shield us) | 0.2, 1.1, 1.7, 5.5, 6.1 |
| PCR r 15A(2)(b), the duty to encourage amicable resolution | Original sentence: see A.1 | PCR ?ProvIds=pr15A- | See A.1 | 1.7 |
A.5 What the regulators and SAL do themselves: directory, awards, specialist accreditation, register lookup
What you'll do in this section: before writing a directory listing, an award, specialist accreditation or a register lookup anchor, come here and check the regulators' and SAL's own original wording — how they themselves sell a placement, give an award or write an accreditation sets the boundary for how each of these cells is written. The Law Society's "Find A Featured Lawyer/Law Firm" directory (the Featured directory) is the only paid placement this book suggests considering, but its rate-card terms have not been obtained: get them before you buy.
| Source | Original sentence | URL | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society's "Find A Featured Lawyer/Law Firm" directory | "You can find a lawyer or law practice by area. Please note this is not a complete list as the listings are paid by advertising." The page also directs the public to the LSRA for the complete list | lawsociety.org.sg/find-a-featured-lawyer-law-firm/ | Statute text (the regulator's own practice: a paid placement listed by practice area, with "paid by advertising" stated on the page); buying, on a fixed rate card, a pure advertising slot that is display-only, with no referral or case assignment: Original text not obtained: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR r 39, GN 6.1.1 paras 33–37, PD 6.1.2, the Law Society's Featured directory page; check date: 2026-09-29), 70% confidence; this book suggests considering only this one paid placement: Conservative line (not statute text) (70% confidence); whether this placement includes referral or case assignment depends on the rate-card terms, which have not been obtained: Original text not obtained (the original /advertise-with-us/ page now 404s); get them before you buy | 6.2 |
| The Law Society's Practice Excellence Awards | "Award recipients will receive a commemorative plaque and a special Practice Excellence emblem to showcase in marketing materials." "Nominations for the Practice Excellence Awards are reviewed by an independent selection committee appointed by the Society." "no fees are chargeable for this year’s nomination process." "The Nominator, or the number of nominations received, has no effect on a lawyer’s recognition for the purposes of the award(s)." | lawsociety.org.sg/recognising-our-awardees/ (the old address /the-law-society/lawsocietyawards/ now redirects here) | Statute text (the regulator permits using the emblem in marketing materials); this is an award given to individual lawyers (first given in 2025, with a Family category); write it on the winning lawyer's own page — the firm's page only says "<Name> of our firm received …": Conservative line (not statute text) (wording) | 3.2, 3.3, 6.6 |
| The LSRA "Search for a Lawyer or Law Practice" page | This search "lists all Singapore solicitors with a current practising certificate from the Supreme Court of Singapore, as well as all foreign lawyers, individuals and law practice entities registered with the LSRA"; "the Ministry of Law does not make any warranty or representation as to their accuracy, completeness or reliability." | eservices.mlaw.gov.sg/lsra/search-lawyer-or-law-firm/ | Statute text (the entry point and the disclaimer); the field names for individual practising details: Original text not obtained (until verified, a lawyer's page states only the register lookup link and the check date — no number, and never write it as "government-certified") | 3.2, 5.19 |
| SAL Specialist Accreditation, current page | "An Accredited Specialist is a legal practitioner with at least five years’ PQE who has been deemed by SAL to possess the necessary knowledge and skills to handle front-end and/or litigation work of some complexity in a specialised area of law." "Your accreditation is an individual attainment. It should not be used to promote your firm or organisation." "If your accreditation is suspended, revoked or cancelled, you cannot hold yourself out as an accredited specialist." Four accreditation fields are listed: "BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION LAW" "MARITIME AND SHIPPING LAW" "DATA AND DIGITAL ECONOMY LAW" "FAMILY LAW"; the field open for applications: "Senior Accredited Specialist in Family Law", application period "1 July 2026 - 31 August 2026"; "Accreditation is valid for three years after which all specialists must apply for reaccreditation." | sal.org.sg/learn/specialist-accreditation/ (current version, read 2026-09-29) | Statute text (SAL scheme rules) | 1.6, 3.2 |
| SAL's Family Law accreditation documents | v1.00 (Information for Specialists – Family Law, effective 1 April 2026) 3.1: "Both the Accredited Specialist and Senior Accredited Specialist accreditations in Family Law are valid for 3 years as of the date on which the accreditation is conferred." v1.01, the information guide (2026-05-19), the timetable in section 5: the first round, "OLY 2027 Results released" | sal.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Specialist-Accreditation-Scheme-FAM-Law-Specialists-2026.pdf (v1.00); sal.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Specialist-Accreditation-Scheme-FAM-Law-Info-Guide-2026-v2.pdf (v1.01) | Statute text | 1.6, 3.2, 5.8 |
| SAL's Marketing Your Accreditation guide (v7.01, effective 2025-03-21) | 3.1: "Specialists must adhere to the obligations in the relevant legal profession legislation when publicising their practice including, but not limited to, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 rr 43 and 44". 4.1: "Because specialist accreditation is an individual attainment, such accreditation must be identified with the specialist only and not with his or her law firm." 4.2: "the specialist should not authorise, and his or her law firm should refrain from, using phrases such as: “We are an accredited specialist law firm” or a derivative of the same." 4.4: "Specialists must be reaccredited to promote themselves as such and to use the specialist accreditation post-nominals." 4.8: "In communications such as biographies on a specialist’s law firm’s website or events publicity, the words “Accredited Specialist” or “Senior Accredited Specialist” should appear together and in title case … but as “an Accredited Specialist in Building and Construction Law”." Paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 give only the English post-nominals; the official Chinese translation appears only in para 4.7, and lists only three fields: building and construction, maritime and shipping, and data and digital economy | sal.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Information-Guide-for-Marketing-Accreditation-2025.pdf (the current link's download is byte-for-byte identical to the 2025-10-29 archived copy) | Statute text; the post-nominals and Chinese translation for family law: Original text not obtained (not yet covered by the guide; until SAL publishes them, write the title in full — never invent an abbreviation or translate it into Chinese ourselves) | 1.6, 3.2, 5.3 |
| The SAL Directory of Specialists | The "Directory of Specialists" tab on the current page: 121 entries as of 2026-09-29, 0 for family law (the separate address seen in the archive, …/specialist-accreditation/directory/, now 404s; the in-page tab is authoritative) | sal.org.sg/learn/specialist-accreditation/ (in-page tab) | Statute text (fact: as of 2026-09-29, no family lawyer can describe themselves as an Accredited Specialist in Family Law) | 1.6, 3.2, 5.8, 5.19 |
| The Law Society's Ethics Resources Factsheet (2024-07-26 edition), paras 15–17 | "From 2015 to date, the Advisory Committee has issued more than 100 written guidances to members." The 2019 and 2020 Professional Ethics Digests "are available in the Members’ Library" | lawsociety.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Law-Society-Ethics-Resources-Factsheet-26-July-2024.pdf | Statute text (statement of fact) | 0.2, A.6 |
| Chambers, Legal 500, Doyle's, Benchmark, The Straits Times × Statista "Best Law Firms" and other third-party ranking guides | No regulator document specifically mentions these ranking guides, paid awards or self-nominated selections (the full category 6 list on the Law Society's ethics page has been checked) | — | Original text not obtained (no dedicated regulator document); can be cited as evidence of expertise under r 43(2)(g)'s "assessment by peers": Statute text; write only your own entry (publisher, year, category, tier): Conservative line (not statute text); do not infer "ranked above <firm>", "ranked number one" or "the only firm listed" from a ranking: Conservative line (not statute text) (80% confidence); an award obtained simply by paying is, by default, not written: Conservative line (not statute text) (70% confidence) | 3.3 |
A.6 Things no rule prohibits, the history of the old rules, and the original texts we could not get
What you'll do in this section: wherever the main text tags "Original text not obtained: no prohibition found in the current rules", come to the first table to check which documents it was checked against and at what confidence; to the client, say only "we found no rule that prohibits it". The last table lists the original texts we could not get and how to get them next time — get the members'-area item done before work starts.
Things no rule prohibits
The following twelve items all rest on "no current rule prohibits it", not "a rule allows it". Following this book's own convention, they are tagged "Original text not obtained": write them in this book's default wording, and do not use them as a basis for judgement; if a contrary ruling appears in the members'-area guidance or in a new Practice Direction, rewrite within the same quarter (for the reclassification triggers, see 0.2).
| Item and the condition for writing it | Fixed sentence (scope checked and check date) | Confidence | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Writing the firm's own fee range and "from": range + billing method + what's excluded + stating that the final fee is set out in the letter of engagement, with "from" immediately followed by the defining conditions. The counter-evidence is PD 6.2.1 D's third sentence (the Council's advice that fee details are best explained to the client in person — advice, not a ban; see A.3) | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full [including Part 5 (r 37–49), r 17, r 18 and r 18A], all category 6 PDs and GNs on the Law Society's ethics page, the revoked Publicity Rules (in full); check date: 2026-09-29) | 75% | Original text not obtained | 1.2, 5.5 |
| Proactively asking clients to leave a review: searches for "testimonial" and "endors" both return 0 across the old and current rules, and the ethics page has no document dedicated to client reviews. The four conditions — offer no incentive, don't write the review for them, don't ask only satisfied clients, don't dictate the content — are the conservative line, based on r 44(1)(b) | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the current PCR in full, the revoked Publicity Rules (in full), the full category 6 list on the Law Society's ethics page; check date: 2026-09-29) | 70% | Original text not obtained | 1.5, 6.5 |
| The firm's own page offering a free first consultation: it must be genuinely free, stating the scope and duration (r 44(2)(b)), and never written as a promotional hook. This item covers only the firm's own page; our own materials never say we provide "free legal consultation" (s 33(1)(b), see A.2). r 40(1)(c)(i) and PD 7.4.3 D.2(d)(i) cover only a referror advertising that the service is free | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29) | 60% | Original text not obtained | 1.2, 5.5 |
| Publishing on the firm's behalf: the basis is that r 42(1) assumes publicity done by someone else on the lawyer's behalf, not r 41(b) or r 46; having a partner or director sign off each batch of material is our own control gate, not a legal formality (the conservative line) | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full; check date: 2026-09-29) | 85% | Original text not obtained | 0.2, 6.1 |
| Buying a pure advertising slot on a fixed rate card: limited to a placement that is listed by practice area, chosen by the reader, with no referral, no case assignment and no payment based on results; not even a fixed entry fee is paid to a referral or matching platform (the conservative line, 80%) | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR r 39, GN 6.1.1 paras 33–37, PD 6.1.2, the Law Society's Featured directory page; check date: 2026-09-29) | 70% | Original text not obtained | 6.2 |
| When we run a firm's marketing for a fixed service fee, this does not amount to "place at the disposal" under s 33(3): we do not handle client allocation, and we do not "provide" the public with any particular lawyer's services; no case law or guidance has confirmed this, so have legal review it before we quote | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: all of LPA s 33; check date: 2026-09-29) | 70% | Original text not obtained | 0.2 |
| Court fees and the firm's own fees in the same table, in a separate column: the subject is the court; give the fee table's name and the date the figures were taken | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29) | Not stated separately | Original text not obtained | 1.3, 5.4 |
| The firm's own page stating a platform rating in one line: write only one line — "platform · number of reviews · rating · check date" (r 44(2)(c), verifiable) — and this wording is the conservative line; no star-rating widget, no review-aggregation page | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29) | Not stated separately | Original text not obtained | 1.5 |
| Settings that control crawler access — robots.txt, the firewall, nosnippet and the like — do not count as publicity, so changing them does not need a partner's sign-off; text in schema markup meant for readers is still reviewed as publicity | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full [including the r 2(1) definition of "publicity" and Part 5], the Legal Profession Act and its subsidiary rules, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29) | Not stated separately | Original text not obtained | 2.4 |
| Taking part in a third-party ranking guide's review process, submitting material by their own procedure; once listed, writing only your own entry (the conservative line) | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs, the full category 6 list on the Law Society's ethics page; check date: 2026-09-29) | Not stated separately | Original text not obtained | 3.3, 6.3, 6.6 |
| Writing a second-opinion and change-of-lawyer page: the subject may only be the client's situation, never an assessment of the previous lawyer | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29) | Not stated separately | Original text not obtained | 4.2, 5.11 |
| Writing a case summary page: the subject is the court; for family law, use only judgments the court has already published in anonymised form, and additionally run the de-identification check | No prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29) | Not stated separately | Original text not obtained | 5.15 |
History of the old rules
| Rule number | Original sentence | URL | Label | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The revoked Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules (R 13, 2010 RevEd), r 6 | The old r 6 already had three items with the same structure as current r 43(1)(a)–(c): expertise must be justified, no claiming a success rate, no comparing fees or service quality (paraphrased). The full text of the 2010 RevEd (r 1–12) contains no "testimonial" or "endors", and the current PCR in full likewise returns 0 (2026-09-29) | sso.agc.gov.sg/SL-Rev/161-R13/Published/20100531?DocDate=20100531 | Statute text (historical fact: neither the old nor the current rules ban testimonials; online marketing articles claim that Singapore lawyer advertising must not contain testimonials or endorsements, but neither the old nor the current original text supports this, so it is not relied on) | 1.5 |
| Law Gazette 2012-08, "Publicity of Law Practice in Online Forums, Blogs and Other Social Media Platforms", paras 7 and 9 | Para 9: "if a person initiates a request on the website, online forum or blog (or through any other online platform) to retain the solicitor, he may respond with a private written proposal outside the website, online forum or blog (or through any other online platform) so that persons who did not request the proposal cannot see it." Para 7: recommends periodically reviewing whether the generic legal information on the firm's website is accurate and keeps up with changes in the law (paraphrased) | v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2012-08/499.htm | Conservative line (not statute text) (guidance from the Law Society's Ethics Committee, from the old-rules era, citing the revoked Publicity Rules; not carried over into the current PDs) | 5.2, 5.9 |
The strongest objection to the side decision, and why we do not adopt it
This book places law firms on the lightly regulated side, with 75% confidence (0.2). The key reading is this: r 43(1)(c) bans only two dimensions — "the fees charged" and "the quality of the services provided" — which fits the definition of "limited" in the third question of → General Edition 0.2 Decide which side you are on first: "testimonials can be written but with conditions, or only part of comparison is banned". Read r 43(1)(c) as banning comparison across the board, and law firms fall on the strictly regulated side instead. The strongest objection is set out below, word for word:
Family law firms should be treated as strictly regulated: ① what r 43(1)(c) bans — "fees charged" and "quality of the services provided" — are exactly every dimension a buyer wants to compare; ② a family client's identity is itself confidential information, and a case is governed by both FJA s 10 and CYPA s 112 at once, so in family law the conditions in "testimonials can be written but with conditions" can almost never be met; ③ the Council's "dignity" standard has consistently reached beyond the rule's literal wording — flyers, HDB letterboxes, brochures left with clients, the firm's name in filmed footage, and TV price lists have all been found improper, and a website fees page is only one step away from a price list; ④ when unsure, start on the stricter side.
Why we do not adopt it: ① and ② describe the wording within each cell, and this book has already written those cells to the strictly regulated side's standard — no comparing fees, no comparing quality, nothing published that could identify a child, family case studies and reviews decided case by case with sign-off, plus a separate de-identification check. Pulling the whole site onto the strictly regulated side changes only two more things — banning fee ranges and banning requests for reviews — and the original text happens to ban neither, so banning them would mean adding rules on the regulator's behalf. ③ Every dignity ruling with original text behind it targets offline distribution, in-person solicitation and television; for websites, PD 6.2.2 A says outright, "It is also permissible for the law practice to display the flyer and/or its contents on the law practice’s website.", and GN 6.1.1 para 31 says outright, "A law practice’s website can be used as an advertising tool". ④ "When unsure, start on the stricter side" governs situations where a judgement call is uncertain; every one of the four questions has original text to answer it, and the only uncertain judgement call is how the fees page is presented — and that cell is already written on the stricter side (no price posters, no promotional tone, stating that the final fee is set out in the letter of engagement).
Rulings on conflicts in earlier drafts
- Market ranges that don't name anyone: the ban on comparing fees or service quality with other firms is Statute text (r 43(1)(c)) — anything that names a firm, that lets readers identify which firm it is, or that appears in the same table or passage as the firm's own price, falls into this tier; a market range with no names, standing alone as its own sentence with the firm's own price nowhere nearby, is Conservative line (not statute text) (85% confidence) (1.3).
- Whether the firm's own page can display a platform rating: whether it may be displayed is tagged Original text not obtained (fixed sentence in the table above); the one-line wording is the conservative line (1.5).
- The basis for publishing on the firm's behalf: r 42(1) assumes publicity done on the firm's behalf (tagged Original text not obtained, fixed sentence in the table above); not r 41(b), and not r 46 either (for the reasoning, see the notes on those two rows in A.1).
- What gives PDs their binding force: LPA s 71(7)–(9) plus r 44(1)(c); not r 38(c)(iv) or r 34(1)(f)(iv).
- "Write the approved full name in every piece of publicity": PD 6.2.2 C's original text covers only flyers, and its wording is should; extending it to every piece of publicity drops it to the conservative line (85% confidence); "match the approved name word for word" carries a separate conservative-line tag (75% confidence).
- Splitting out "leading": PD 6.2.1 D(a) says only that calling yourself leading without the expertise to back it up is misleading — not a blanket ban; by default, don't write it, and write it only when a third-party ranking guide's own tier of the same name backs it up (conservative line, 70% confidence). The basis for No. 1, top or best changes to r 43(1)(c) plus r 44(2)(c) (conservative line, 80% confidence).
- How to read "legal associates": employed lawyers, not paralegals; PD 6.2.3 says a breach "may reasonably be regarded" as misleading — not that it is automatically misleading.
- The Gazette: s 88(4) requires only penalty orders and reprimands to be published in the Gazette; warnings are not.
- SAL's Family Law accreditation: the earlier draft's line — "accreditation covers only three fields, and there is nothing a family lawyer can write" — is out of date: the current page now lists Family Law, but no one can claim it yet (0 entries for family law in the directory, 2026-09-29); the first results are due to be announced at the Opening of the Legal Year 2027 (OLY 2027); accreditation is valid for 3 years.
- Fixed entry fees for referral platforms: GN 6.1.1 para 35's "pay a fee" reaches far enough to cover this, so it is not paid (conservative line, 80% confidence); a pure advertising slot bought on a fixed rate card has its confidence lowered from 80% to 70%, with a form-of-placement condition added (fixed sentence in the table above).
Original texts we could not get
| Item | Impact | How to get it next time |
|---|---|---|
| More than 100 pieces of written guidance from the Advisory Committee, and the 2019 and 2020 Ethics Digests (in the members' area; the download link returns a login page) | May contain case-specific rulings on reviews, directory listings, social media or fees pages; this is where most of the remaining uncertainty in the side decision's confidence lies, and a contrary ruling triggers reclassification that same quarter | Before work starts for the first law-firm client, ask the client's firm to export these using its own members' account |
| Law Gazette 2010-03, "Ethics in Practice" | The source for PD 6.2.1–6.2.3; the PDs themselves have already been checked word for word, so the impact is small | Use a browser to fetch the corresponding page on the old Law Gazette site |
| Disciplinary Tribunal report summaries | The real scale of penalties for publicity, touting and referral-fee misconduct | Search the last five years' summaries by touting, publicity and referral |
| MinLaw's Q&A on foreign-law-practice publicity on ask.gov.sg | How to write a foreign law practice's Chinese-language page | Fetch with a browser |
| A publicity PD issued by the Professional Conduct Council under LPA s 71(6) | No public text was found this round; if one exists, it outranks the Council's PDs (s 71(8)) | Check Supreme Court or Law Society announcements |
| The Family Justice (General) Rules 2024 and the Family Justice Courts' practice directions | How much detail hearing documents may disclose; the rule number behind the "Hearing fees" line on the fees page | Next round, get the corresponding provisions from SSO and the Family Justice Courts' Practice Directions |
| Women's Charter s 94 | The original sentence for the marriage-length threshold to file for divorce; until checked, the main text writes no number of years | Next round, get the original text from SSO |
| CYPA s 2's age definitions of "child" and "young person" | Up to what age s 112 covers; until checked, read it on the stricter side | Get CYPA s 2 |
| The CPFTA and the PDPA | The base layer; personal data in review replies (PD 6.1.1 already names the PDPA) | Check next round |
The rate-card terms for the Law Society's paid directory (the original /advertise-with-us/ page now 404s) | Whether the paid directory placement includes referral or case assignment; must be obtained before buying | Find the rate-card entry point from the Featured directory page, or write to the Law Society to ask |
| The Senior Counsel list | The source for checking the SC title on a lawyer's page | Get next round |
| The LSRA's field names for individual practising details | Until verified, a lawyer's page states only the register lookup link and the check date, not a number | Open the register lookup results page in a browser and note down each field |
| The original text of Syariah Court procedure and fees, and the AMLA (Administration of Muslim Law Act) | The source for the set of Muslim-marriage pages (5.17) | Get next round |
| The post-nominals and official Chinese translation for SAL's Family Law accreditation | Once family-law accredited specialists exist, only the full title may be written | After the Opening of the Legal Year 2027 (OLY 2027), check SAL's updated marketing guide and backfill 1.6, 3.2 and this appendix |
| Items that are only paraphrased, with no original sentence extracted: PD 3.11.2 in full, PD 7.4.3 para E, LPA s 78(1)(e), s 30(6), s 33(7A), s 83(2)(b)(i), s 85(1)(b)(c), CYPA s 112(1)(c), RI Rules r 11(2), GN 6.1.1 paras 11 and 37, PD 6.2.1 para C, the case footnote in PD 5.2.1, and para 7 of Law Gazette 2012-08 | When the main text cites these, it uses only a paraphrase, with no quotation marks; until PD 3.11.2 is obtained, cite only the document name | Next round, extract the original sentence for each one and add it to this appendix |
