Persuasive English in a Changing Hong Kong Legal Landscape
Steven Wong is a Legal English Consultant and Textbook Writer with 15 published books. He is currently working on his novel about HK post-1997. Steven Wong retired from full-time teaching after a 30-year career across Asia and Europe.
For Hong Kong lawyers, the language of law has never been simply a matter of vocabulary. It has reflected Hong Kong’s unusual position: Chinese in culture and daily life, English in much of its legal and commercial history, and, since 1997, increasingly bilingual in its formal institutions.
This linguistic environment has changed considerably. This does not mean that English has become less important; it remains essential to international legal and commercial communication. What has changed is the role English plays within Hong Kong’s legal system and the linguistic background of the people using it.
This matters because knowing legal English is not the same as being persuasive in English.
From an English legal system to a bilingual one
Before the handover in 1997, Hong Kong’s legal system operated predominantly through English, although the overwhelming majority of the population was Chinese-speaking. English was the language of legislation, judgments and much formal legal business.
The transition towards bilingualism began before 1997. The Government undertook the enormous task of producing authentic Chinese versions of existing laws. Since the completion of that process, new legislation has been enacted in both Chinese and English, with both versions legally authentic.
The Basic Law subsequently gave this arrangement constitutional status. Article 9 provides that, in addition to Chinese, English may be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary.
The change was therefore more than simply allowing lawyers to use Chinese in court. It created a legal environment in which both Chinese and English became legitimate languages of legal thought, legislation and advocacy.
The Judiciary describes the present arrangement as a bilingual court system in which either or both Chinese and English may be used.
For the Hong Kong lawyer, this created a new linguistic reality.
The three-language professional environment
The formal legal system may be bilingual, but Hong Kong’s professional environment is effectively multilingual. Cantonese remains central to everyday professional life, while Putonghua has become increasingly significant in dealings with Mainland clients, businesses and institutions. English remains essential in international business, finance, arbitration and cross-border legal work.
A Hong Kong lawyer may therefore move between three linguistic worlds during a single working day:
Cantonese for local communication.
Chinese for much domestic legal and professional communication.
English for international legal and commercial communication.
This makes the question of legal English more complicated than simply asking whether a lawyer’s English is grammatically correct. The challenge is often linguistic switching.
A lawyer may be comfortable discussing a case in Cantonese, capable of reading a contract in English and competent at producing written submissions in English, yet find it more difficult to negotiate spontaneously in English, challenge opposing counsel diplomatically or present a complicated argument orally before an international tribunal. These are different skills.
Legal English vs. Persuasive English
Consider, “It is respectfully submitted that the respondent’s interpretation is incorrect.”
There is nothing grammatically wrong with this sentence. It is recognisably legal English. But it does not tell the tribunal very much.
Compare, “The respondent’s interpretation cannot be reconciled with Clause 12.” The second sentence is shorter and gives the arbitrator something concrete to consider. Or, “The respondent relies on Clause 12. But Clause 12 does not say what the respondent says it says.”
This is spoken advocacy. The lawyer is not merely demonstrating command of English. The lawyer is controlling the structure of the argument.
This becomes particularly important in international arbitration, where the tribunal may come from different jurisdictions and English may be the common working language even when it is not the first language of any tribunal member.
The Hong Kong lawyer therefore needs English that is not merely accurate, but internationally intelligible, concise and persuasive.
A change in the culture of advocacy
There has also been a change in the balance between written and oral advocacy. The Hong Kong Department of Justice has noted the importance of written submissions alongside increasingly limited time for oral submissions. It has emphasised the need for advocates to present compelling arguments both on paper and orally.
A written argument cannot simply be converted into an oral presentation.
For example, “In light of the aforementioned circumstances, and having regard to the totality of the evidence as adduced by the parties, it is respectfully submitted that the tribunal ought to conclude that the respondent was aware, or alternatively ought reasonably to have been aware, of the circumstances giving rise to the alleged delay.”
When spoken, this is heavy. An advocate might instead say, “The respondent knew about the delay. The evidence establishes that. At the very least, the respondent should have known.”
Three short sentences can carry greater persuasive force than one elaborate sentence.
The problem of excessive indirectness
Cultural and linguistic transfer can also affect advocacy.
In a Chinese-speaking professional environment, indirectness may be useful. It can preserve relationships, avoid unnecessary confrontation and allow disagreement without openly humiliating the other party.
These qualities can be valuable in negotiation, but they can become a weakness in arbitration if they obscure the lawyer’s actual position.
For example, “It may perhaps be suggested that the claimant’s position is not entirely consistent with the evidence.”
What does the lawyer actually mean? Probably, “The claimant’s position is inconsistent with the evidence.”
The answer is not to abandon politeness or adopt an aggressively Western style of advocacy. The more sophisticated approach is to develop control over the degree of directness.
A lawyer should be able to choose between:
“We disagree.”
“We do not accept that proposition.”
“That interpretation is difficult to sustain.”
“The evidence does not support that conclusion.”
“That argument cannot be reconciled with the contractual wording.”
Each expresses disagreement, but each produces a different rhetorical effect.
Negotiation requires another kind of English
Arbitration and negotiation should not be taught as though they require identical language.
In arbitration, the lawyer wants the tribunal to reach a conclusion. In negotiation, the lawyer wants the other side to move. A lawyer might say in arbitration, “The respondent has failed to establish causation.”
In negotiation, the same position might become, “Our client is not persuaded that the evidence establishes causation.” Similarly, “Your proposal is unacceptable.” could become, “We would have considerable difficulty recommending that proposal to our client.”
And, “You caused the delay.” could become, “Our client’s position is that responsibility for the delay rests with your client.”
The substantive position has not disappeared. It has been expressed in a form that leaves room for the conversation to continue.
This is particularly important in Hong Kong, where lawyers may negotiate between Chinese-speaking clients and international counsel. The ability to adjust linguistic temperature without changing substantive meaning is a genuine professional skill.
The advantage of Hong Kong’s linguistic environment
The changes since 1997 should not therefore be presented simply as a loss of English dominance.
Hong Kong’s bilingual legal system has produced something potentially more valuable: linguistic flexibility.
The modern Hong Kong lawyer may need to move between Chinese and English, local and international clients, arbitration and litigation, and adversarial advocacy and commercial negotiation.
That requires more than vocabulary. It requires awareness of tone, register, implication, cultural expectations, rhythm, directness and persuasion.
A lawyer who says, “I know what I want to say, but I cannot quite find the right English,” is describing a problem that grammar books cannot solve.
The solution is not necessarily more complicated English. It is often better English.
From correctness to choice
The central lesson for Hong Kong lawyers is therefore simple.
Legal English training should not replace Chinese patterns of thought with Western ones, nor persuade lawyers to abandon the formal traditions of Hong Kong’s common-law heritage.
It should give lawyers greater linguistic choice. A lawyer should know when to say, “It is respectfully submitted...” and when to say, “The evidence shows...”
When to say, “We would have difficulty accepting that proposal...” and when to say, “We cannot accept that proposal.”
When to use traditional language of advocacy, and when a shorter, clearer sentence will have greater impact.
Hong Kong’s legal language has changed because Hong Kong itself has changed. Since 1997, Chinese and English have developed a formal coexistence within the legal system, while Hong Kong lawyers increasingly operate across local, Mainland Chinese and international professional environments.
The challenge is therefore not simply to speak English correctly. It is to understand what English is doing.
In arbitration, English must clarify, organise and persuade. In negotiation, it must influence without unnecessarily confronting.
In both, the finest advocate understands that the most powerful sentence is not necessarily the most complicated one. It is the sentence that makes the listener see the argument exactly as the lawyer wants it to be seen.
Read more from Wai CS Wong
Wai CS Wong, Legal English Consultant & Textbook Writer
Steven is bilingual and bicultural. Arrived in UK at aged 4, grew up working in his father's hospitality business, attended university in Scotland and also a second degree in HK. He has worked in several countries, including the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hong Kong, China. Although retired, he continues to consult on Legal English and write Common Error textbooks for the HK, Taiwanese, and Middle Eastern markets.
