New Developments in Limited Liability Partnership Law in Hong Kong

About the Authors:

Joseph Li is senior partner at Joseph Li & Co. in Hong Kong. His principal areas of practice are commercial litigation and professional negligence/misconduct. Mr. Li is a council member of the Law Society of Hong Kong and is chairman of the Working Party on LLPs.

In the absence of legislation for limited liability partnerships (LLPs), Hong Kong law does not recognize a U.S. LLP law firm operating in Hong Kong as a true LLP. Farrar Buxbaum LLP v. Samuel-Rozembaum Diamond Ltd. (CACV 272/2004).

Until now, law firms in Hong Kong have only been allowed to practice in one of two forms: (1) a sole proprietorship or (2) a general partnership with joint and several liability for all partners concerned in the firm. 

The concept of “joint and several liability” has long been criticized as giving rise to unfairness, because all the partners of the firm are jointly and severally exposed to liability, regardless of whether they are personally at fault. 

For nearly a decade, the Law Society of Hong Kong has been pressing for legislative changes for the establishment of LLPs to allow law firms an additional choice in setting up their legal practice so that innocent partners can opt out of having to shoulder personal liability in situations where they are not personally at fault.

The Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Ordinance

On July 12, 2012, the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Ordinance (the Amendment Ordinance) was finally passed by the Hong Kong legislature, permitting a law firm to practice in the form of an LLP. 

However, the Amendment Ordinance is not yet in force, because necessary amendments to subsidiary legislation and procedural rules are still pending. 

Nature of an LLP

An LLP operates in much the same way as a general partnership. The major difference is that in an LLP, an innocent partner would not be automatically liable for any negligence arising from the provision of professional services by other partners, employees, agents, or representatives of the law firm. 

Notwithstanding this general principle, it should be noted that a partner would continue to be personally liable (1) for his or her own negligence; (2) for the negligence of those employees, agents, or representatives under his or her direct supervision; and (3) where a partner knew of negligence at the time of its occurrence and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent its occurrence. 

Other Key Features of Hong Kong LLP Law 

The other key features of Hong Kong LLP law can be outlined as follows:

Partial Shield v. Full Shield 

Pursuant to Part IIAAA of the Amendment Ordinance, the Hong Kong model of LLP law only provides a “partial shield” against partnership obligations arising out of a “negligent or wrongful act or omission or any misconduct” of other partners of an LLP. This means that, unlike the LLP model in some overseas jurisdictions, the Hong Kong model does not provide a full shield against partnership obligations not arising from professional services defaults, such as payment of general trade debts, office rent, and overhead, for which all partners would continue to have joint and several liability.

Top-Up Insurance Coverage 

All LLPs in Hong Kong would be required to maintain top-up insurance coverage of not less than HK$10 million for any one claim, with no limit in the aggregate in addition to the current mandatory Professional Indemnity Scheme coverage of HK$10 million per claim, thus making a minimum total coverage of HK$20 million per claim. 

Two Years’ Clawback of Partnership Distributions 

Clawback provisions are also applicable to LLPs in Hong Kong under Part IIAAA of the Amendment Ordinance. If an LLP makes a distribution to a partner or an assignee of a partner’s share in the LLP in contravention of the relevant solvency tests set out in the Amendment Ordinance, the partner or the assignee (except where the circumstances fall within the statutory defense available under the Amendment Ordinance) is liable to the partnership for the value of the distribution or the amount necessary to discharge the partnership obligations at the time of the distribution, whichever is the lesser. Proceedings to claw back may be commenced within two years after the date of distribution to which the liability relates. 

Partnership Model v. Corporate Model 

Unlike in London or Singapore, or those states in the United States where “corporate” LLPs are allowed, the Hong Kong LLPs would operate on a “partnership” model only, i.e., not as a separate legal entity. 

Additional Requirements for Setting Up an LLP

Apart from the existing requirements for the establishment of a law firm in Hong Kong, a firm applying to be an LLP would also have to comply with the following additional requirements: 

  1. The law firm must have a written agreement between its partners designating the partnership as an LLP.
  2. The law firm must also provide the Law Society of Hong Kong with evidence that it has complied with the top-up insurance requirement as mentioned above.
  3. The Law Society of Hong Kong must be notified of the particulars of the LLP at least seven days in advance of its commencement of business.
  4. The name of the partnership should either include “Limited Liability Partnership” or the abbreviation “LLP,” and such name should be clearly stated in all partnership literature and at the firm’s premises.
  5. Where a law firm has been carrying on practice as a general partnership in Hong Kong immediately prior to its becoming an LLP in Hong Kong, it must notify its existing clients of the change and the resulting effect on the partners’ liabilities.
  6. Further, after a law firm has accepted instruction to act for its client(s) on a retainer matter, the identity of at least one overall supervising partner for that matter must be disclosed to its client(s) within 21 days thereafter. Otherwise, a partner of an LLP would not enjoy limited liability protection for nondisclosure. 

The Way Forward

The LLP legislation brings Hong Kong in line with many overseas jurisdictions and is consistent with the global trend. The legislation will enable law firms in Hong Kong to operate as LLPs and, as a result, expand their practice and scale of operations. It is hoped that the Amendment Ordinance will be brought into force before the end of 2013.



Nominations Sought for Section Leadership Positions

Do you know anyone who has what it takes to be a good Section leader? The Nominating Committee of the Section needs your recommendations for leadership positions for the 2017-2018 association year. Nominees will be selected for: Chair-elect (who automatically assumes the position of chair the following year); Secretary (who automatically assumes the position of vice chair the following year); Content Officer; two Section Delegates to the ABA House of Delegates; and five additional Council members for a four-year term expiring in 2021. The Nominating Committee will take into account the following principles in making its selections. It will: select nominees who have been substantial and active contributors to the Section; seek geographic diversity in the leadership of the Section; strive for representation from a broad cross-section of the areas of law represented in the Section; and seek to draw leaders from a broad cross-section of the various sectors of practice, including corporate law departments, government, academia and private law firms; and actively recruit nominees that reflect the diversity of the Section. Please send your nominations by email to no later than November 18.

Question: Between November 2, 2015 and November 4, 2015, Harris Poll conducted an online survey of 2,017 adults ages 18 and older on behalf of NerdWallet, Inc. to understand U.S. consumers’ credit card payment habits and feelings around different types of debt. The results of this study were published in the 2015 American Household Credit Card Debt Study. According to the 2015 American Household Credit Card Debt Study, what percentage of U.S. adults would be more embarrassed to tell others about credit card debt than any other type of debt?
A. 10%
B. 35%
C. 55%
D. 90%

Question: From the late 1600s to the early 1800s, “debtors’ prisons” were commonplace with many cities and states operating brick-and-mortar detention facilities that were designed for incarcerating individuals who were unable or unwilling to pay their debts. Imprisonment for indebtedness was so commonplace that two signatories of the Declaration of Independence were jailed for failure to pay their debts. Can you name those two signatories?

The November issue of Business Law Today will focus on Nonprofits. Articles will range from the “Delaware Advantage” to nonprofit organizations needing nonprofit lawyers. In addition, other features include keeping pace with disruptive technological change, insurance bad faith recoveries, and constitutional issues in granting Americans a “Right to Dispute.”

Do you have a great idea for a BLT article? Would you like to see more of a featured column? Let us know how we can make Business Law Today the best resource for you and your clients. We welcome any suggestions. Please send us your feedback here.

Business Law Section Fall Meeting
November 18-19, 2016
Washington, DC

Business Law Section Spring Meeting
April 6-8, 2017
New Orleans, LA

Miscellaneous IT Related Legal News (MIRLN) 25 September - 15 October 2016 (v19.14)

BLT is a web-based publication drawing upon the best of the Section's resources, including featured articles and other information from around the Section. Stay informed on the latest business law practice news and information that will benefit you and your clients.