How To Enforce The Law In Hong Kong Korea

Transcription

1 Hong Kong Employment Law Update July/August 2012 In This Issue Use of Pinhole Cameras by Employer on Staff: Hong Yip Service Company Case Employers Risk Criminal Conviction When Turning A Blind Eye on Sham Contractor Arrangements Employee Fights: When Does it Become the Employer s Liability? Court Strikes Out Statement of Claim Due to Lack of Details on Material Facts Bonuses: Verbal Announcement of Bonus Pool Was Binding More News on Paternity Leave: Likely to be Introduced in 2013 Increase to Compensation Levels for Work Injuries and Occupational Diseases Additional Wage Protection for Employees Upon Employer Insolvency Amendment of Maximum Level of Relevant Income for Mandatory Provident Fund Contributions Increased to $25,000 on 1 June 2012 Inland Revenue Department Imposes New Reporting Requirement for Employers Labour Department Launches Work Safety Alert Smartphone Application Did You Have Your Say on the Statutory Minimum Wage Rate? Preferential Tax Treatment for Hong Kong / Macau Residents Working in China Hong Kong 14th Floor, Hutchison House 10 Harcourt Road, Central, Hong Kong 23rd Floor, One Pacific Place 88 Queensway, Hong Kong Tel: Fax: Beijing Suite 3401, China World Office 2 China World Trade Centre 1 Jianguomenwai Dajie, Beijing , PRC Tel: Fax: Shanghai Unit 1601, Jin Mao Tower 88 Century Avenue, Pudong Shanghai , PRC Tel: Fax: General Case Update Use of Pinhole Cameras by Employer on Staff: Hong Yip Service Company Case In brief: The Privacy Commissioner held in a recent case that covert surveillance should only be deployed by employers on staff in exceptional circumstances. This echoes the Privacy Guidelines: Monitoring and Personal Data Privacy at Work ( Monitoring Guidelines ) which provide that other overt options for obtaining the necessary data should be explored and objectively ruled out before deploying covert methods. Take away points: 1. Employers should consider drafting and/or updating any privacy policies to deal with employee monitoring. The policies should set out the circumstances in which monitoring may take place. In addition, it is important to stipulate the rules that apply to management staff when conducting monitoring to prevent any abuses. 2. Employers should note that apart from filing a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, the employees may also resign and bring constructive unfair dismissal claims (where they feel they are forced to resign due to the employer s actions). An employee s claim for constructive unfair dismissal is likely to be successful if it is found that the covert monitoring was unnecessary, for an excessive period or has created an untenable situation for the employee. 3. If there is any perception that the monitoring targets employees on a discriminatory basis, for example due to their race, sex, disability or family status, then the stakes will be much higher as awards for discrimination claims are uncapped and can be costly. As such, it is important for employers to carefully consider how any covert surveillance would be justified. Facts: Two former employees of Hong Yip Service Company Limited ( Hong Yip ) made complaints to the Privacy Commissioner following their summary dismissal on the grounds of unauthorized absence from duty. The complainants were told that the decision to dismiss was based on images of them captured by a pinhole camera which showed that they

2 had spent long periods in a changing room when they were on duty. The complainants found the pinhole in a metal box located on a staircase leading to the changing room. The complaint centered around the fact that Hong Yip had invaded their privacy by installing a device without their knowledge which was collecting their personal data. The Privacy Commissioner found that Hong Yip s behaviour was unfair and in contravention of Data Protection Principle 1(2), namely that personal data shall be collected by means that are (i) lawful; and (ii) fair in the circumstances of the case. The Privacy Commissioner did not issue an Enforcement Notice against Hong Yip due to the fact that they had removed the camera and destroyed the images of the complainants and it was considered that repeated contravention of Data Protection Principle 1(2), was unlikely. Employers Risk Criminal Conviction When Turning A Blind Eye on Sham Contractor Arrangements HKSAR v. Weisheng Transportation Limited (Court of First Instance) In brief: Weisheng Transportation Limited ( Appellant ) was prosecuted at the Magistrate s Court on 14 charges which included for failure to ensure an employee (Mr Shek) became a member of a registered MPF scheme and for failing to make MPF contributions. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges but was convicted after a trial and its appeal was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. The Appellant alleged that Mr Shek was not an employee and relied upon the fact that it had contracted with a company called Traffic Logistics to undertake the work. It was held that the contracts between the Appellant and Traffic Logistics were false agreements whose purpose was to disguise the actual employer-employee relationship. The Appellant had also argued that it was entitled to rely on Mr Shek s deceiving behaviour as a reasonable excuse under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. However this was rejected on the basis that the Appellant was found to have turned a blind eye on issues of lawfulness and legitimacy and was not entitled to rely on its own unreasonable behaviour as a reasonable excuse to defend itself. Take away points: This case demonstrates the level of scrutiny that employers are expected to apply to contractor arrangements. The Appellant was cross examined on their knowledge of Traffic Logistics corporate structure, financial position and mode of operation and was criticized for failing to request copies of relevant meeting minutes and resolutions in relation to the contract. It is evident that all the questions that an employer would face at court should be put to the contractor prior to engaging their services in order to 2 Hong Kong July/August 2012

3 avoid criminal liability in relation to MPF obligations. Employers should also be aware that independent contractors challenging their employment status may bring claims for unreasonable termination and for failure to pay other statutory entitlements including severance payments. Employee Fights: When Does it Become the Employer s Liability? Chan Kai Ming v. Ricacorp Properties Limited & Another (HCA 1441 / 2008) In brief: Chan Kai Ming ( Plaintiff ) brought several claims against his former employer, Ricacorp Properties Limited ( Defendant ) in the Labour Tribunal, Small Claims Tribunal and the High Court over a period of a few years following his summary dismissal after a fight at work. The High Court considered a number of his claims including one for breach of duty of care in relation to the employer s failure to protect and/or take precautions in relation to the employee who fought with him. The High Court dismissed the Plaintiff s actions on the following basis: The High Court took the view that the Plaintiff was not attacked by his colleague; rather, that they got into a fight as evidenced by the injury sustained by his colleague which was documented in his medical record. Although the Plaintiff and his colleague had been in several heated arguments prior to the fight (from October 2004 to December 2004), the High Court did not consider these to be sufficient to give rise to any foreseeable risk. The previous arguments were verbal and there were no signs that any physical violence would take place. The manner in which the Defendant handled the incidents namely, to ask the Plaintiff to meet in a different location and the plan to address the matter the following day was found to be appropriate. Background The Plaintiff had been involved in two verbal quarrels with a colleague which he had brought to the attention of his employer. The day before the fight that led to his summary dismissal, the Plaintiff and his colleague had a further heated quarrel which he notified his manager about. The Plaintiff s line manager instructed him to meet her in person in a different location and proposed to handle the conflicts between the two members of staff the following day. However the next day a further quarrel ensued during which the Plaintiff was hit by his colleague which led to a physical fight taking place in the office and then outside. Both the Plaintiff and his colleague were summarily dismissed as a result. Take away points: 1. The Defendant was successful in defending against these claims primarily due to the measures that had been taken by the Plaintiff s line manager. However in this case, the response did not need to July/August 2012 Hong Kong 3

4 be sophisticated given the limited time that had lapsed between the incidents taking place. Employers should carefully consider any complaints received regarding arguments between colleagues, assess risk to both parties, consider the best way to resolve the conflict (separating the parties, requesting them to attend mediation etc) and document each step taken. 2. It is interesting to note that the breach of duty of care claim followed three years after the dismissal. This demonstrates the importance of retaining employment records as they are often pivotal to the successful defence of such claims. Court Strikes Out Statement of Claim Due to Lack of Details on Material Facts AXA China Region Insurance Company Limited v. Lin Kwai Ying Katie In brief: AXA brought claims against their former employee who had been head of their Swiss Privileges services. It was alleged that she (i) had breached the non-solicitation clause of her employment contract; (ii) was in breach of her fiduciary obligations; and (iii) had committed the tort of causing loss by unlawful means. The defendant sought to strike out these claims on the basis that they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and element (iii) of the claim was insufficiently pleaded to constitute a valid cause of action in causing loss by unlawful means. The Court of First Instance criticized AXA for failing to properly plead the material facts and struck out the statement of claim although it was stated that the action would not be dismissed if AXA served a re-amended statement of claim reformulating its case regarding the tort of causing loss by unlawful means within a certain timeframe. We will continue to follow this case with interest and report on any further developments. Take away points: There was a reference in the judgment to the difficulties which arise when parts of a claim fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal but other components of it are founded in tort, which the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear. The judge noted that this issue has come up several times, most recently in the Deutsche Bank AG (Hong Kong Branch) case. The judge quoted from the Deutsche Bank AG decision that the rationale for these claims being heard by the court instead of the Labour Tribunal was due to the fact that the legislature intended the Labour Tribunal to be an informal forum for employees [and employers] to pursue their claims in a speedy manner and claims based on tort, breach of common duties or statutory duties are likely to be too complicated for the Labour Tribunal to be able to deal with speedily. The judge held that he was prepared to accept jurisdiction in relation to the claim in tort on the basis of past decisions and because he did not consider that it was a litigation tactic and mere window-dressing with the agenda to have the claims fall outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal. As mentioned above, 4 Hong Kong July/August 2012

5 AXA will have to reformulate its case in order to remedy the defects in its statement of claim, prior to the court accepting jurisdiction. It seems likely that the Legislative Council will need to address the issue of what should properly fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal in the near future, as there have now been several judgments where views have been expressed that the legislature could not have intended certain complex claims to be heard in the Labour Tribunal. Bonuses: Verbal Announcement of Bonus Pool Was Binding Attrill v. Dresdner Kleinwort and another In brief: The English High Court has held that an oral promise to create a minimum bonus pool of EUR 400 million was binding on an employer, even though it did not explain how individual awards would be allocated. The High Court also concluded that the employer should not have introduced a clause into individual bonus letters which purported to allow reductions based on changes to its results. Take away points: 1. The decision highlights the potential consequences of making promises in relation to bonuses, even in fairly general terms and also the importance of making sure that bonus communications are clear, unambiguous and do not unduly fetter the employer s discretion. 2. It is helpful that the High Court confirmed that employees will find it difficult to show that they relied on a statement by their employer simply by remaining in employment, where there are other possible explanations for them doing so. 3. The suggestion that the unilateral attempt to introduce the material adverse change clause was a breach of the duty of trust and confidence, although not binding on future courts, would mean that employees could have resigned and claimed constructive dismissal in response to the clause being introduced. Employees who did so would not have been bound by any restrictive covenants in their contracts. Background Dresdner faced high levels of staff attrition following an announcement that it intended to sell its investment banking business. Under pressure from the Financial Services Authority ( FSA ) to address the staff turnover, it chose to propose a minimum bonus pool of EUR 400 million, which was announced by the CEO of the investment bank at a Town Hall meeting in August The announcement was later reinforced by statements from HR. Between August and December 2008, Lehman Brothers went into liquidation and the performance of Dresdner s investment bank July/August 2012 Hong Kong 5

6 deteriorated. As a result, employees annual bonus letters, sent in December 2008, included a material adverse change clause ( MAC clause ) that sought to reserve a right to reduce bonus payments if additional material deviations were identified in Dresdner s accounts. In January 2009 Commerzbank acquired Dresdner s investment banking business. Dresdner exercised the MAC clause and reduced bonuses by 90%. Over a hundred employees claimed that the Town Hall announcement was contractually binding on Dresdner, which had therefore breached their contracts of employment by introducing the MAC clause and reducing their bonuses. In 2010, Dresdner and Commerzbank applied for summary judgment on the basis that the claims had no realistic prospect of success. The High Court held that the argument that the announcement of the minimum bonus pool created enforceable legal rights had no reasonable prospect of success but allowed the argument that the individual bonus letters created such a right to proceed to a hearing. On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court s decision on the announcement of the minimum bonus pool and allowed both arguments to proceed to a full hearing. High Court The High Court has now upheld the employees claims. It held that the CEO s announcement amounted to a contractual commitment. Although it did not need to decide the point, it also held that the introduction of the MAC clause was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Town Hall announcement The High Court considered that: the announcement was clear and unequivocal and committed Dresdner to paying a guaranteed minimum level of bonuses no matter what (i.e. regardless of Dresdner s performance); Dresdner must have intended the announcement to create a legal obligation, otherwise it would not have achieved the desired effect of retaining staff or satisfying the FSA; the announcement, in conjunction with a subsequent from the Group Head of HR, amounted to a unilateral variation to employees contracts (in accordance with the relevant provision of Dresdner s employee handbook); and there was consideration for the promise, in terms of the substantial staff retention benefit. The High Court stated that, had the announcement merely constituted an offer to change terms, not a unilateral variation, it would have found that Dresdner had impliedly waived the need for acceptance. However, it also held that if there was no such implied waiver, it would have found that acceptance could not be inferred simply because the employees had remained in employment because it was not satisfied that the employees 6 Hong Kong July/August 2012

7 continued employment was only referable to the announcement of the bonus pool. MAC clause Dresdner had conceded that if the announcement amounted to a binding commitment it was not entitled to introduce the MAC clause. Therefore it was not strictly necessary for the High Court to consider the MAC clause. Nevertheless the High Court gave its view on the matter. It found that the clause had been introduced as a result of pressure from Commerzbank, and to enable Dresdner to go back on its earlier promise and that this amounted to a breach of trust and confidence. The High Court also found that, even if the MAC clause had been enforceable, Dresdner had not complied with its terms in reducing the bonuses. Among other discrepancies, the bonus review was not carried out by the CEO in January 2009, Dresdner had not established that the reduction to the bonus pool was necessary and Dresdner had used the wrong forecast when comparing financial results. This meant that, even if the clause had been lawfully introduced, Dresdner would not have been entitled to reduce the bonuses. News update: More News on Paternity Leave: Likely to be Introduced in 2013 Statutory paternity leave of between 3 to 5 days may be introduced in Hong Kong next year. Background The Secretary for Labour and Welfare commissioned a comprehensive study on paternity leave last year. This report is now being shared with the Executive Council following which it will be discussed at the Labour Advisory Board. In April 2012, the government introduced 5 days of paid paternity leave for eligible government employees and it was reported that there was support amongst Legislative Council members to providing statutory paternity leave to all workers. Controversy The media have reported concerns expressed by employers that statutory paternity leave would raise labour costs and place an unnecessary burden on employers. The government has estimated that the overall cost in lost man-hours would be between HK$300 million and HK$400 million a year, or about 0.02 per cent of the total. In the circumstances, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has stated that the effect of giving paternity leave is relatively small to the business sector. July/August 2012 Hong Kong 7

8 Next steps It is anticipated that a proposal will be put to the Legislative Council next year and it is likely that statutory paternity leave could become a reality in Increase to Compensation Levels for Work Injuries and Occupational Diseases Following a review, the Legislative Council passed 3 resolutions to increase the amount of a total of 15 compensation items under the Employees Compensation Ordinance, the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance and the Occupational Deafness Compensation Ordinance. The revised levels of compensation took effect from 21 July The levels of compensation are normally adjusted every 2 years in line with wage and price movements. A review was conducted against the backdrop of the substantive wage increase brought by the implementation of the statutory minimum wage and was also impacted by rising price levels and funeral expenses. The new levels of compensation are applicable to accidents that take place on or after 21 July Full details of the amendments can be found on the Labour Department s website which can be accessed via this link. Additional Wage Protection for Employees Upon Employer Insolvency The Protection of Wages on Insolvency (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (the Ordinance ) was passed by the Legislative Council on 18 April 2012 and came into force on 29 June Under the Ordinance, the scope of the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund will be expanded to cover: 1. pay for untaken annual leave payable to an employee upon termination of the employment contract under the Employment Ordinance ( EO ) including: (a) (b) pay for any untaken annual leave earned in the employee s last full leave year; and pro rata annual leave pay for the last leave year where the employee has at least three but less than twelve months service entitlement upon termination of the employment contract; and 2. pay for statutory holidays under the EO not yet taken by an employee within four months before his or her last day of service. The Ordinance provides that neither the amount of pay for untaken annual leave nor the amount of pay for untaken statutory holidays, nor the total amount of the two, may exceed HK$10, Hong Kong July/August 2012

9 The Labour Department has published a guide to assist employers and employees to understand the amendments. It is entitled A Concise Guide to the Protection of Wages on Insolvency (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 and can be downloaded from the Labour Department s homepage ( Amendment of Maximum Level of Relevant Income for Mandatory Provident Fund Contributions Increased to $25,000 on 1 June 2012 The maximum level of monthly relevant income for the Mandatory Provident Fund ( MPF ) increased from HK$20,000 to HK$25,000 on 1 June Impact of amendment The increase means that the cap on maximum monthly contributions to the MPF scheme changed from HK$1000 to HK$1250. Action required Employers should check that their systems were updated in order to ensure that the contribution amounts are being calculated as per the new level for the contribution periods which commenced on 1 June Inland Revenue Department Imposes New Reporting Requirement for Employers In a change to employers reporting requirements, employers must now report payments in lieu of notice made to employees on or after 1 April 2012, in Forms IR56F and IR56G. The Inland Revenue Department ( IRD ) issued a notice which accompanied its BIR56A forms for the year of assessment 2011/12 requiring reporting of all payments in lieu of notice. In the past, the IRD treated payments in lieu of notice as not taxable and therefore did not require them to be reported. The change is the result of the recent case of Fuchs, Walter Alfred Heinz v Commissioner of Revenue. In Fuchs, the Court of Final Appeal held that the termination payments received by the taxpayer pursuant to his employment contract were income from employment and therefore subject to salaries tax. For a reminder of the full details of this case, please access our March 2011 Employment Law Update newsletter. In Fuchs, the Court of Final Appeal held that a payment in lieu of notice made pursuant to the terms of an employment contract would constitute employment income. Although the Court of Final Appeal did not specifically deal with the position where the employment contract does not provide for early termination by way of payment in lieu of notice, the IRD now requires reporting of all payments in lieu of notice (whether pursuant to the employment contract or the Employment Ordinance). July/August 2012 Hong Kong 9

10 Action required by employers - the specifics: Employers are required to report payments in lieu of notice paid on or after 1 April 2012 as follows: Under item 13(d) of Form IR56F; or Under item 11(d) of Form IR56G. Employers do not need to report payments in lieu of notice paid before 1 April 2012, in their IR56B forms for the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March Labour Department Launches Work Safety Alert Smartphone Application The Labour Department launched the Work Safety Alert mobile application ( App ) for both the Apple operating system (ios) and Android platforms. The App is a very creative way to disseminate important work safety information including details of recent serious and fatal work injuries and the Labour Department s recommendations on general safety and precautionary measures. The development of this App demonstrates that the Labour Department is willing to be resourceful to ensure that it reaches its desired audience through the latest medium. Did You Have Your Say on the Statutory Minimum Wage Rate? The Minimum Wage Commission (the Commission ) held a public consultation inviting views on the current statutory minimum wage ( SMW ) rate. The consultation closed on 28 May The Commission must submit a recommendation to the Chief Executive in Council on the SMW rate by the end of October Employers panic The Commission had to issue a statement to deal with media reports that it had recommended that the SMW rate be increased to a level ranging from HK$29 to HK$35. The Commission clarified that it had listed these different SMW rates on its website to provide information on their potential impact for public reference. The Commission confirmed that the SMW level of HK$35 was the highest rate proposed by labour unions at consultation meetings last year and, therefore, it conducted estimations at SMW test levels ranging from $29 to $35. The Commission has emphasised that at this point it does not have any stance on whether the SMW rate should be maintained or adjusted. Factors to be taken into account The Commission confirmed that it will take an evidence-based approach taking a range of factors into account including the following: the post-smw implementation wage distribution data by the Census and Statistics Department; 10 Hong Kong July/August 2012

11 impact assessment based on wage distribution data and findings of other surveys and studies; extensive consultation to capture the views and concerns of the community and various sectors of society on the SMW rate. The Commission has highlighted that it must consider the need to maintain an appropriate balance between the objectives of forestalling excessively low wages and minimising the loss of low-paid jobs, as well as the need to sustain Hong Kong s economic growth and competitiveness. Preferential Tax Treatment for Hong Kong / Macau Residents Working in China Summary A State Administration of Taxation ( SAT ) notice allows for preferential individual income tax ( IIT ) treatment for Hong Kong and Macau residents working in China. Such preferential treatment may in more circumstances allow for time apportionment of salary income, as well as special treatment of certain bonus income. Background In May, the SAT issued a Notice Regarding The Implementation of The Employment Income Related Clauses in The Double Tax Arrangements between Mainland China and Hong Kong and Macau (SAT Bulletin [2012] No. 16, Bulletin 16 ). Bulletin 16 seems to provide certain preferential IIT treatment to Hong Kong and Macau residents working in China, although its implementation is yet to be tested. Impact of Bulletin 16 Bulletin 16 provides a key benefit to Hong Kong residents working in China but still living in Hong Kong. Under the general IIT rules, they cannot enjoy time apportionment and their salary income will be fully taxed in China unless they have a separate position outside of China. At the same time, they will also be taxed in Hong Kong if they spend more than 60 days in Hong Kong during a tax year. Bulletin 16 allows a Hong Kong or Macau resident employed in Hong Kong or Macau and seconded to work full time in China to enjoy time apportionment even without a position outside of China. For example, a Hong Kong resident who goes to Shenzhen on Mondays to work in Shenzhen on weekdays and comes back to Hong Kong on Fridays, may be able to pay tax in China on only four-seventh of his/her salary. Special treatment of bonus Another benefit under Bulletin 16 relates to bonus income attributable to multiple periods. Under the general IIT rules, bonus income attributable to multiple periods cannot be time-apportioned based on actual days spent in China. If an expatriate has spent one day in China in a particular July/August 2012 Hong Kong 11

12 To find out more about how our Employment Law Group can add value to your business, please contact: Jennifer Van Dale Direct: Susan Kendall Direct: International Law Firm of the Year: Employment Chambers China Awards 2012 Ranked No 1 Labour and Employee Benefits Super League PLC Which Lawyer? 2011 Best Employment Law Consultant of the Year (Andreas Lauffs) China Staff Awards 2011 Leading Law Firm for Employment Law in Hong Kong ALB Employment and Labour Law Survey 2011 Tier 1 Law Firm for Employment (China & Hong Kong) Asia Pacific Legal 500, Band 1 Law Firm for Employment (China & Hong Kong) Chambers Asia 2012, 2011 Leading Law Firm for Labour and Employee Benefits in Hong Kong PLC Which Lawyer? 2012 Leading Law Firm for Labour and Employee Benefits in China PLC Which Lawyer? 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 Yearbook Ranked No. 1 Employment Law Firm PLC Which Lawyer? Global Employment Top Ten Firms Leading in China International Employment Firm of the Year in China China Law & Practice Award 2011, 2008 month, the bonus income attributable to that month will be fully taxed in China. Bulletin 16 purports to allow time apportionment on bonus income based on actual days spent in China during the period for which the bonus income is earned. When does the preferential IIT treatment commence? Bulletin 16 applies to income earned on or after 1 June Action points for employers Hong Kong and Macau employers must file a Guoshuifa [2009] No.124 form each time they apply for the preferential treatment under Bulletin 16 for their employees. Employers should also ensure that working arrangements which involve cross border duties are appropriately documented and the favourable tax treatment is provided in respect of those employees who are eligible. This Update has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Baker & McKenzie. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility can be accepted for errors and omissions, however caused. The information contained in this publication should not be relied on as legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for detailed advice in individual cases. No responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person acting on refraining from action as a result of material in this Update is accepted by clients, authors or Baker & McKenzie. If advice concerning individual problems or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional adviser should be sought. Data Privacy Please contact Jane Lee by telephone or jane.lee@bakermckenzie.com should you wish your details to be added, amended or deleted from our mailing list Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie, a Hong Kong Partnership, is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a partner means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an office means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as Attorney Advertising requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 12 Hong Kong July/August 2012