The Legal Aid Department has recently recommended that the means test standard for the Ordinary Legal Aid Scheme be lowered. Under the proposed change, the upper assets limit for eligibility would be increased from HK$175,800 to HK$260,000, and that eligibility for the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme would be increased from HK$488,400 to HK$1,000,000.

At a Legislative Council session in February 2009, I moved a motion proposing a "lowering of the means test for legal aid". A year has passed, and the government has finally completed the relevant review. I heartily welcome the government's recommendation but still need to point out that the revised cap for the Ordinary Legal Aid Scheme is still too low. As I always have argued these years, the litigation cost in Hong Kong is really too high for the ordinary middle class family. Even if one does not take into account the value of one's residential property, having HK$260,000 in cash is far from being enough to finance any substantial court case in Hong Kong. I have come across many cases in which the litigants are from middle class families, but suffered much financial stress hovered on the brink of bankruptcy because of having been implicated in lawsuits. It is inevitable that once the 80 percent "Compulsory Auction Ordinance" comes into effect, many more property owners will be forced to resort to litigation if mediation fails.

The revised upper assets limit for the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme of HK$1,000,000 is more reasonable, although ordinary middle class families may still easily be ruled out. It is currently made available only in cases with high chances of success and potential for high returns. The scope is limited to claims such as personal injury, dental and legal negligence, etc. I would like to invite the government to look into the feasibility of offering the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme to a wider population, such that more middle class applicants who meet the assets requirement may benefit from enhanced legal protection. As of now, many middle class families are involved in structural, large-scale financial disputes such as the Lehman Brothers Mini-bond case, but they would be ineligible for the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme even under the revised scheme. Financial disputes aside, consumer goods claims and property management disputes are further examples of what should come under the Scheme. As legal aid is public money, I would agree applications for legal aid should be vetted with great care to ensure it will not be abused.

On another note, the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants under the Hong Kong legal aid services and other judiciary bodies do not provide substantive legal advice to the needy. Assistance provided by the Home Affairs Bureau to incorporated owners of properties does not include providing legal or mediation advice either. The government should seek to improve upon the current situation, such that citizens may benefit from legal advice or assessments on the chance of success before resorting to litigation. This, I believe, could ease the demand on legal aid.

The author is a legislator and associate professor of the Law School of City University

(HK Edition 04/09/2010 page2)