SINGAPORE

Team size
The most common team size respondents are working in is two-to-five (44.7 percent), followed by teams of six-to-20, which was the case for 28.2 percent of those who filled out the survey. 12.9 percent work alone, 8.2 percent in teams of over 50 and only 5.9 percent are in departments sized 21-50.
None of those asked believe their team will shrink in the coming 12 months, with most (76.3 percent) under the impression that they’ll remain a consistent size. The other 23.7 percent, due to growth in business and workload, as well as restructuring of personnel, anticipate their in-house team size increasing over the next year. Justifications for presuming the team size will remain as is include an adequate current team size and budgetary restraints, as is the case in multiple other jurisdictions. Last year, some (though only 1.3 percent of) delegates in Singapore believed their teams would shrink during the subsequent 12 months.

Recruitment
The most frequent way in which in-house departments find new lawyers in Singapore is still through legal recruiters, which is the chosen method for 76.2 percent of participants. Others find placing job advertisements useful (33.3 percent), referrals from others within their company (17.9 percent) and referrals from other in-house lawyers (16.7 percent).

KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
“Keeping up-to-date with the compliance requirements from different jurisdictions in Asia” is the biggest concern of many regional counsel, both in Singapore and across Asia. In the words of another though, “[Working in] an evolving and sometimes vague local regulatory framework [with] unpredictable enforcement actions” was an issue, which might be a surprising conclusion of the role in the Lion City to some.

The impact of ASEAN integration was seen as a concern, with many citing relevant regulatory updates and legislative changes as being challenges that are currently facing in-house counsel. Managing costs and compliance were key ongoing concerns for others.

Respondents anticipate that these issues along with an increasing workload that is not matched by an increase in resources will be the challenge to face going forward. Also, many saw preparing for a new technological era as something that will be important.

Working with external counsel
When evaluating external counsel, more than anything, Singapore’s In-House Community considers expertise (77.4 percent). Secondly, they prioritise both fees and responsiveness, each of which was one of the most influential factors according to 47.6 percent. Law firm reputation (28.6 percent) is also important, as are relationship between company and law firm and reputation of individual lawyer (both 22.6 percent). (Figure 23)

Asked about the pitfalls of outside counsel, excessive fees were the number one concern, with 46.4 percent claiming this was an issue they had been bothered by. Others were keen to point out that there is often a failure to completely understand the business (36.9 percent) and that external counsel frequently take too long to get back to them (35.7 percent). The same top three issues are consistent with last year’s survey. (Figure 24)

As well as the majority of in-house counsel in Singapore expecting no additional employment in-house, most (63.9 percent) also expect no increased use of external counsel over the coming 12 months. 30.1 percent anticipate using law firms more and six percent predicted that they would use them less.

It appears that a lot of the community in Singapore only refers to external counsel when it comes to litigation, with many saying they did not plan to use external counsel more because they only use them for these cases:“We hope to settle our disputes amicably, in the interest of maintaining business relationships. Only in extreme last-resort cases do we institute legal proceedings”. Similarly, some of the responses as to why the participant foresaw more external counsel use justified this by saying they expected to be involved in more litigation cases in the coming year.

Budget and preferring to keep work in-house were also reasons some said the use of external counsel would remain the same: “Due to cost control measures we try to do all work in-house unless it’s cross-border or requires very specialised advice”.

Another reason for stating external counsel would be used less was a web-based provider of information, showing that technology is being integrated into the jurisdiction’s approach to the sector more than it has been previously.

Along with the desire to use external counsel for litigation cases and compliance and regulatory issues, which are common reasons in many jurisdictions for anticipating increased usage of external counsel, some noted ASEAN as being a reason to require extra outside aid.