我在2012年6月21日接受了一班城市大學年輕的法學博士生的訪問，話題是關於在香港應否推行按條件收費。
我告訴他們，為了堅持法治社會的精神，廣開言路，法律改革委員會其實在2007年已經發布了相關的報告，如果它能夠發展成為某種意義上可以保障香港市民的“事後保險”，就會是一個非常好的勢態。但問題是現在香港並無相關的保險政策，因此，這個問題暫時性是無解的。
另一方面，法援處正在推行中的法援輔助計劃，其實也是有條件/機動性的收費。它只允許由終審法院執行。
以一個純粹的法律從業人的角度出發，長遠來說，
基於合同自由以及香港不能落後於美國、新加坡、中國和英國這些的現實，CFA是應該推行的。
Interview by CU’s juris doctor students
I attended an interview on 21st June 2012 by a bunch of young juris doctor students from CU to discuss about whether conditional fees should be introduced in Hong Kong.
I told them that the law reform commission had released a report on this in 2007 which was supported by the law society that on balance of all views, it was good to have this in Hong Kong if there can be a certain kind of “after the event insurance” available for the protection of the public in Hong Kong. But the problem is that there are currently no such type of insurance policies available in Hong Kong. So the answer to the question is therefore no.
On the other hand, the legal aid department is running a very successful supplementary legal aid scheme which in fact by nature is a conditional / contingency fee arrangement. That is also the only permissible CFA operated in Hong Kong.
In the long run, from a purely practitioner’s point of view speaking,
CFA should be allowed in Hong Kong because of the freedom of contract and the fact that Hong Kong should not be falling too behind of other jurisdictions like, United States, Singapore, China and England, where CFA has been allowed for over a decade.