Once thought to be recession-proof, the legal profession is now in a recession. Firms - big and small, conservative and highly leveraged, all feel the business pressure from the economic downturn. A drop in profits, declining spending for legal services by corporations, attorney layoffs and a major competitive threat from law firms are now the order of the day. Does your law firm have what it takes to be recession resistant?

To help ensure you are in the best position to give the leadership your firm will require during this difficult period, Asia Business Forum is pleased to invite you to join our 3rd Annual Asia Pacific Management Conference at the Royal Plaza on Scotts Hotel, Singapore on 29-30 September 2009; the one and only event that will equip you with practical strategic insights to stay competitive and sustain your law firm’s growth and profitability in the current economic downturn. Do not miss this rare opportunity to meet key legal experts from Asia Pacific, all in one place to discuss broad range of topics in successfully managing law firms and overcoming a wide range of issues facing law firms of all sizes during today’s challenging times.

What Makes This Conference Different From Other Law Firm Conferences?

· A Panel of 25 Speakers from International, Regional, Local and Boutique Law Firms including:

o Deacons, Australia

o Clayton Utz, Australia

o Corrs, Chambers & Westgarth, Australia

o Pinsent Masons, Hong Kong

o Dechert, Hong Kong

o Wikborg Rein

o DFDL Mekong, Vietnam

o DFDL Mekong/Mekong Law Group, Thailand

o Drew & Napier

o Lovells Lee & Lee

o Shook Lin & Bok

o Zul Rafique & Partners, Malaysia

o Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners, Indonesia

o SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan, Philippines

o And many more!

· A Unique Gathering of Leading Law Firms’ Leaders and Senior Partners from 8 Asia Pacific Countries – Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam

· More strategic Take-Away Than Ever Before – Find out all the topical issues you need to know in managing law firms including:

o Singapore’s legal sector liberalisation

o Optimal efficiency for maximum profitability during Global Financial Crisis

o Cross-border strategic alliances

o Client retention management

o Best talent recruitment and retention strategies

o Rainmakers’ compensation strategies

o Law firm management in the emerging markets

o Paralegal deployment

o Risk management

o Due diligence

o Knowledge management

o Law firm’s payment model

o Law firms use of Web 2.0 applications

o Marketing and brand management

o Succession planning

o Future outlook for law firms

o External lawyers’ outsourcing criteria

· 4 Interactive Content-Led Roundtables to Allow You to Hear the Opinions of:

o Managing Partners

o In-House Counsels

o Gen-Y Lawyers

· A Cutting Edge Industry-Driven Topics with 18 Hours of Learning and Experience Sharing

· Ample of Networking Opportunities

This conference will be of vital interest to firms that are ready, willing and able to shift gears into a more productive business model. With the experts’ advice, the transition should be easier.

Don’t Delay, Mark your calendar today!

Book Your Seat Now to Enjoy Our SPECIAL EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT!

(SAVE S$ 400 for registration and payment received by 29 July 2009)

Click here to for more details of The 3rd Annual Asia Pacific Law Firm Management Conference.

Call us (Asia Business Forum) now at (65) 6536 8676 or (65) 6536 8437 or fax at (65) 6536 4356 or email our customer service at cs@abf-asia.com

This article is originally published in LoyarBurok.com

Click to see Part 1/3 and Part 2/3 of Advocating the return of honour to the legal profession.

The absence of honour in our legal profession is reflected in our own legal practise. These days a ‘letter of confirmation’ is issued for the most petty of matters such as mentioning on behalf of another (see my article ‘Of Mentions and Mentioning on Behalf‘ for a fuller explanation of this notion), the informing of the next hearing or mention date, or the amendments to a few words in a draft agreement. I used to be taken aback and disappointed that a lawyer would confirm my agreement to mention a case on his behalf for a mere mention, now I’m just disappointed. Lawyers also fail to realize the economic and ecological wastage due to the lack of honour and the negative consequential effects it breeds amongst lawyers.

Let us take as an example a situation where X calls up Y to mention case K and obtain another mention date or to fix a hearing date. If there was honour between them, Y would take down all the details (case number, date, reason for next date/free dates) and carry out the same. Once this was done he would call X up and inform him of the next date, etc. and that would be the end of the matter for that transaction.

In a situation without honour, after the phone call, X (or his clerk) would spend time drafting a letter to confirm the mention, faxing and/or posting it over, make a copy for his file and sometimes even carbon copy the letter to his client and troubling them over such unnecessary matters (must you really trouble them over such petty, unnecessary details pertaining to their case?). Once Y (or his clerk) had obtained the date, he too would spend time drafting a letter informing the next date, etc. basically doing the exact same thing that X did.

Clearly the same thing is accomplished in both examples but one more tediously and expensively so. I will not go into the loathsome practise of some lawyers that charge exorbitant allowances for attending to a mention or rant about some lawyers whose bulk of practise is made up of just such ministrations. That will be reserved for another occasion. The ecological wastage is clear - paper, postage and electricity are wasted on such a petty transaction. The economic waste is less obvious - there is the opportunity cost of the lawyer and/or clerk drafting the letter; there is the cost of the paper (letter and envelope), for the postage and fax transmission, for electricity used; there is waste of effort in filing the letter and faxed copy properly; the client is distracted by such petty matters. Later on during taxation, these letters will also form part of the party and party cost and become payable. Now imagine this repeated many, many times. The cost of all this is borne by the client. So in truth, a client?s case becomes more expensive when there is a lack of honour amongst lawyers. This cost is also widely out of proportion to the transaction i.e. getting a simple mention date.

This also has a wider economic cost to society because its’ ecological, economic and human resources are wasted on an unproductive if not inefficient transaction. In fact, the word ‘honour’ has been insidiously retired from our ordinary conversation. No one speaks of ‘honouring a cheque’ anymore. They speak of whether it ‘clears’ or not. Even when the word is used, it is more often used in the negative sense - ‘dishonour’ a cheque, imputing negativity to the concept of ‘honour’. The word ‘celebrate? has gradually replaced the word ‘honour’ even for occasions that are dedicated to remembrance or appreciation of a person (Mother and Father?s day, for example) or event (Merdeka, Labour Day, etc.), more properly carried out by way of humble and quiet reflection than in the maelstrom of glamour, splendour and pomp.

In summary, a lack of honour not only makes cases more expensive for clients, more tedious for lawyers but encourages distrust amongst lawyers and breeds fragmentation into groups at the Bar. Further, it deepens the modern impression of lawyers as scoundrels that are not to be trusted who would sell their mother in a heartbeat to win a case, clinch a deal, etc. In short the absence of honour in our profession does not just do lawyers a disservice as it desecrates our profession; it does every body else a disservice too.

This is why the advocacy for, implementation and inculcating of the return of the concept of ‘honour’ in our profession, not as mere lip service but as a way of life and practise as a lawyer, cannot be more urgent and important. It is not enough to have it printed on the page, pamphlet, plaque or firm website. It must course through the very veins, dwell in the breast and so fill the mind of each and every lawyer for honour is not seen by the naked eye, it is felt by the naked heart and sensitive mind. Honour can only be practiced personally and not vicariously because at some point, honour will demand sacrifice. And honour is found in sacrificing one?s self, not someone else. This is vividly illustrated in Dicken’s ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ when Sydney Carton, the lawyer, swapped places with his client, Charles DeMornay, and so sacrificed himself. Or when Cicero spoke out eloquently against Mark Anthony at the Senate even as armed guards stood around him ready to kill on instruction (for his magnificent Philippic see Penguin?s Great Ideas series volume 25 titled ‘An Attack on an Enemy of Freedom’).

So clearly the first step in reforming the lawyer, the Bar and the image of the lawyer to the public at large is the restoration of the idea of the honourable lawyer and honour as a way of practise and life. Though honour may be found in reasonable profit, it is completely absent in excessive profit. Honour would be found in meaningful and properly remunerative work, not regularly in the wee hours of the morning at the office. In short, a reformation will be borne in adherence to honour, not to only profit.

But how can we begin this process? I think we can start by first establishing what it means to be honourable. We can take our cue from the qualities I mentioned as comprising the proper internal dimension of a lawyer. To be honourable is to be honest, trustworthy, courageous, responsible, diligent, meticulous, just, and reasonable, and to respect each person as a human being (unless of course that person is unworthy of respect) and let us refer to them as ‘principles’ ? the Principles of Honour or of Integrity, or whatever we like.

Secondly, the important thing is to commit to it absolutely, not conditionally. Lawyers ought to make a private affirmation and oath to themselves everyday to uphold these principles and practise them whenever the occasion arises. If this is done, lawyers would be committed to serving justice instead of their vanity or just money.

The absence of honour has allowed materialism to entrench itself as a guiding conduct and way of practise. The lack of honour has resulted in the rise of hourly billing and the demand of materialistic law firms (and they usually tend to be the big and/or aggressive ones) to treat their lawyers as mere income generators or work slaves accounting for every single second of their time thereby ensuring that every moment spent in the practise of law is not for the furtherance of justice or to bask in its pleasure but the size of the bonus the management bestow upon themselves. This has led to lawyers prostituting themselves for work, whoring themselves to win cases, and doing other unspeakable deeds that decent human beings wouldn?t even consider. Without honour in law, all we are left with in practise is money. And if that is all that is left, then the practise of law is little more than common prostitution. In fact, it sits lower than the common prostitute that hawks herself on the street ? after all, she only sells her body; the lawyer with no honour sells his mind, his reputation, his very conscience and his entire family heritage for mere money.

The absence of honour has provoked the surreal if not offensive debate of whether the practise of law is a mere business. Of course it is a business, but it is not just any common business. It is not a business in the vulgar sense of the word where the bottom line is ‘everything’. The business of law is one where the ‘bottom line’ (the money) is but one line. It is but one of many factors for consideration and it must always weigh against the demands, or to use the terminology, ?bottom line’ of honour. If doing a particular transaction would result in a lawyer’s honour being ‘in the red’ then he is under a duty to reject it. If carrying out that instruction would result in a manifest injustice, he must reject it. The amount offered by way of a professional fee can or should never ever measure up to the worth of a lawyer?s honour (and it doesn’t matter whether he is famous or not, in a big or small practise). If the firm must make less or that lawyer live a little more frugally for a while to preserve its or his honour then so be it. If he feels unable to live up to that honour then I beg him if he has a modicum of respect for the profession of law to relinquish the practise of law and take up some other profession that makes no such ethical or moral demands on the practitioners of its professions ? like a banker or a politician. The thoroughly materialistic tend to forget that the lack of a price tag does not make something worthless. On the contrary, it makes it priceless. And that should be the worth of a lawyer’s honour.

If we as lawyers now start to make an honest concerted effort to live and practise in honour, then there is hope for better times. We must not and cannot wait for rules or legislation to be drafted to demand it of us. It must begin now. Not when it is convenient to do so. We must demand it for and of ourselves. It cannot be left for others to do. We cannot wait for the Attorney General or our supposed leaders of the Bar to initiate it. It must begin now with you and me. Our efforts must not end at dusk. It must continue tomorrow and for everyday thereafter. It must continue until we can so completely rely and depend upon one another as lawyers. And each of us has a duty to preserve not just our honour as lawyers but the profession. A single lawyer is enough to shame an entire profession. And we have much shame to address and many wounds to heal before we can be once again known and respected as an honourable profession. We owe this not just to our fellow citizens and country, we owe it most of all to ourselves.

This article is originally published in LoyarBurok.com

Click to see the Part 1/3 of Advocating the return of honour to the legal profession.

Furthermore, a powerful intelligence is dangerous when coupled with dishonesty just as diligence is wasted without a sense of justice. A person with only the external dimension or only an incomplete proper internal dimension is at best a poser and at worse, a fraud.

The focus and emphasis in recent times on the external dimension is unsurprising given the highly materialistic and consumerist cultural and moral environment in which we find ourselves mired in. Though the latter is a result of the former and related, they are distinct. This requires a brief definition before proceeding further. A materialistic culture is one that prizes the accumulation and possession of wealth, image (one’s physical appearance) or fame. A consumerist culture is one that encourages the notion of absolute possession, disposability and a lack of responsibility to society.

We are all materialists and consumers in one respect but we should not give ourselves over entirely to it. Both these cultures when left to operate without restraint dictate that any accomplishment, quality or feature be defined in quantitative and monetary terms i.e. terms that can be purportedly measured, quantified and ascertained with a degree of finality and authority, and reduced to a price tag. Qualities or features that cannot be so done are ignored. The implication is that they are unimportant in the scheme of things. This is perhaps one reason why lawyer associations in the Commonwealth, not just in our own country, place so much emphasis on the external dimension - it is easily measured and convenient. Are you 18? Have you got a degree from a recognized university? Have you completed your chambering period? Have you passed that laughable ethics test (as if one’s ethics was a static instead of a dynamic quality that can be so easily measured by assigning marks)? These easy questions are irrelevant where it concerns one?s worth and ability as a lawyer.

The questions that should be asked and demanded answers to are, for example, is he someone that would not succumb to the temptation of corruption? Is he generally honest? Is he someone that can maintain a client’s confidentiality? Is he someone who takes pleasure in reading, in thinking, in resolving people’s problems? (You cannot be a lawyer of any worth if you have no interest in reading. As an aside, I met a lawyer who once boasted to me that he was ‘not the reading type’. He claimed that his ability lay in his advocacy. I, of course, expect that he never had the good fortune to come across Cicero’s ‘On the Orator’ who argued that unless the speaker has attained the highest state of knowledge ‘otherwise what he says is just an empty and ridiculous swirl of verbiage.’) Is he dependable under great pressure and stress? Is he someone who actually cares for a client or interested in them for the merely for financial remuneration he intends to squeeze out of them? Is he an honourable person?

Surely, these are the important questions because they have a direct bearing on one’s true worth and abilities as a lawyer. What is more, these questions are the ones that allow us to explore, consider and try to meaningfully evaluate the internal dimension of the lawyer or would be. But often they are left unaddressed or even ignored. For a further discussion on this where it relates to the admission of lawyers, please see my essay ‘Reflections on Moving from an Occasional Mover.’

It is easy to understand why. The internal dimension is hidden and so less easy to perceive, difficult to comprehend if not understand, harder to evaluate usefully because of its dynamic and unquantifiable nature, and impossible to reduce to a price tag. To say he is a ‘78/100′ in terms of ethics is meaningless. To say he is now an ethical person is also meaningless because that can change. Though the situation is not easy, neither is it impossible. The latter should not justify the current ignorance of the internal dimension. That lawyers are in the news for running away with client?s money, breaching the confidentiality of clients, destroying material evidence or court documents, cheating, colluding with the other party to defraud their respective clients, and much more should prompt those with influence in the admission of lawyers to the profession start focusing and intensifying their consideration of the internal dimension of the lawyer and would be. An urgent and rigorous consideration of a person?s internal dimension should be carried out towards a person?s admission to the Bar especially in this modern day and age.

I make no claims to having thought of any significant or meaningful suggestions but I do have an idea for further consideration, discussion and hopefully development - the revival of one of the most prized features of a lawyer, as represented by Cicero, Thomas More and their writings; as characterized by Atticus Finch in Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’, by Sydney Carton in Charles Dicken’s ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ and even by Horace Rumpole in John Mortimer’s Rumpole series; and contained in Alan M. Dershowitz’s ‘Letters to a Young Lawyer’ - the concept of honour. Lawyers were well thought of even during Shakespeare’s time. And we are not impoverished in examples of our own: we had the late R. Ramani, the late David Marshall and our best known example, Raja Aziz Adrusse.

In days when the practice of law was a noble and honourable profession, generally a lawyer could take another lawyer at their word, an agreement can be done with a handshake in the fullest confidence that they can rely and depend upon their fellow brother or sister at law to their word or agreement. The proof of their trust was in their word, in the very fibre of their being and practise, not on some fancy piece of paper. If that lawyer failed to carry out their duty, they would own up to it and take responsibility for their failure. They would not leave it to their insurers. They would not deny wrongdoing until their liability was inevitable. They would rather succeed in dishonour than fail in honour.

Let me give you an example from my own experience. My firm was retained to sue a law firm in Melaka for negligence. What happened was that this law firm received instructions from Z to represent him and four other defendants, one of whom was our client. Upon and without verifying Z’s instructions with the other defendants, the partner of the firm, who was a well known senior lawyer in Melaka, instructed his legal assistant to enter consent judgment on behalf of our client (along with Z and the others). They neglected the terms of consent so the plaintiff understandably commenced bankruptcy proceedings against them and our client. Our client who was a senior manager in a conglomerate was served with a bankruptcy notice and naturally became upset and sued them. When we wrote to the firm to inquire on their appointment and instructions from our client in relation to the consent judgment they actually confirmed that they had none. When we sued them and tried to commence negotiations for an out of court settlement, they insisted that it was not their fault but Z’s fault. The law firm still thrives but this is what I mean by succeeding in dishonour. There is no dishonour in admitting one’s mistake and atoning for it.

And a lawyer did not have to be intimate or long standing friends with another for them to trust each other implicitly - their brotherhood at law was enough to establish such a relationship. I would like to think that the concept of honour had some role to play in this. They did this because honour of their profession demanded that they stand by their word and take responsibility for their actions. If they cannot trust their fellow lawyer’s word, they could not expect a member of the public to trust theirs. Those that stand ready to betray their own would only be too ready to betray others, and ultimately themselves.

This article is originally published in LoyarBurok.com

In this article, Fahri Azzat meditates on the practise of law and the role of honour in the practise of law, its economics, and ethical and moral repercussions. As the article is long, we have broken it up into three parts. The comments for the first two parts will be switched off though comments will be allowed on the third and final instalment so that interested readers can respond after having read the piece in its entirety. The full uninterrupted text will be re-published on the weekend. The subtitle of the article is, “Contemplating the Moral and Ethical Dimensions of a Lawyer”.

There may be some attempt to argue that the pupilage is a time within which that internal dimension can be developed if not salvaged. This is why there is a two day ethics course during one’s pupilage which ends with a written exam that one can actually fail. However, most people who commence their pupilage would be in their 20’s, long after their internal dimension has been structured, if not set (though hopefully not permanently). I think this to be a waste of time and demonstrative of a complete misunderstanding and an outright mockery of ethics itself. It is the former because the course and exam cannot and does not shape their ethical and moral orientation any more. It is the latter because if one fails the ethical test, one can repeat it and eventually pass. Ethics has been reduced to a meaningless shallow test instead of a quality of character (because the questions merely revolve around one’s knowledge of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1972 instead of testing a pupil’s response when confronted with a moral dilemma). We say X is an ethical person because of his conduct not because he has taken a test. We say X is ethical because he possesses the proper internal dimension, not because he has completed his pupilage.

On 27 June 2009, we have successfully held our 1st bloggers and law forum in Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

 The registration counter was set up early in the morning, ready for the challege of the day.

The forum attracted more than 60 participants, which Penangites say “is a good start” considering that this is our first event ever held in the island state now ruled by the Democratic Action Party-dominated Pakatan Rakyat alternative to the previous National Front coalition.
An interesting point to note was that most of the participants at the forum were rather matured and highly educated, including senior and retired lecturers in various disciplines.  

Our Master-of-Ceremony of the day, Ms Yieng San, began by briefing the participants on the agenda of the forum.

Then our Eddie Law was giving a welcoming speech to everyone and explained the services provide by eLawyer.

Ms Ooi Ph Yan, the sale and marketing manager of Exa Bytes Network Sdn Bhd, one of the sponsors, then briefed the audience on her company and its latest products offered by Exa Bytes.
She told us that Exa Bytes was established in 2001 and is currently hosting more than 40,000 domain names. This has made the company the largest hosting company in Malaysia.

The company has more than 50 employees.  
Exabytes has set a noble goal of giving out 1,000 FREE hosting to charity organisations and non profit organisations. As such, if you are from either one of the above, you may contact them at admin@exabytes.com.my

Below are the power point slides presented by Ms Ooi

Mr Foong Cheng Leong, a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer-cum-blogger was one of the speakers, who spoke on blogging and copyrights law.  

Below are the Power Points slide presented by Cheng Leong at the forum

 Our another guest speaker was Mr Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, a journalist-turned-lawyer.
Stephen shared with the participants not only on the laws relating to defamation but also the principles of journalism as well as writing and reporting ethics as an online journalist. Stephen was one of those journalists who organised the First World Pres Convention that was held in Kuala Lumpur in 1985.

Mr Khairul Anuar bin Shaharudin our moderator who shared his view as a lawyer and blogger.

Ms Ooi Poh Yan, the sale and marketing manager of Exa Bytes Network Sdn Bhd receiving a token of appreciation from eLawyer.

A special thank goes to our exclusive sponsor, Exabytes (Mr Chan, Poh Yan & Sing Yee) who have rendered tremendous supports and assistance to us in organising this event.

 En. Abdul Fareed Gafoor, representing the Penang Bar, one of the supporting organisations of the forum, was given a token of appreciation from eLawyer after his address to the participants.

Ms Nushara, representing Universiti Sains Malaysia, another supporting organisation, also received a token of appreciation from eLawyer.

Here is a group photo of the VIPs at the function.

The most exciting moment during the forum was the question-and-answer session which saw the participants asking very relevant questions which the speakers fielded.

Paula, a sociology lecturer, set the vibrant and robust tone when she shot the first question to our speakers.

After the forum, many decided to stay back to network and speak to our speakers.

Group photo of the participants.

If you are not in there, please join us in our next trip to Penang. Blogging is a private iniiative that promises to shape and lead public opinion, even if the blogging focuses on eating out at the famous hawkers’ stalls of this tropical isle situated somewhere near Paradise.

Recently our newly appointed Minister of Information, Communication and Culture Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim urged bloggers to act and write in a responsible manners. He said bloggers who twist the truth shall face music and be held accountable. Please see more report here and our previous report.

As such, we deem the awareness of legal rights and responsibilities amongst bloggers is increasingly crucial. Bloggers should be aware of laws governing bloggersphere, especially, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998 (MCMC Act) and the relevant rules and guidelines of MCMC, laws relating to copyrights issues and defamation laws.

In fact, after successfully organised the eLawyer Blogging & Law Conference in March 2009 at University of Malaya, KL, we received many feedback from the Penang bloggers requesting us to organise the similar event in Penang.

With the assistance and sponsorship of Exa Bytes Network Sdn Bhd (”Exabytes”), the largest web hosting company in Malaysia, we are glad to announce that we will be seeing you in eLawyer - Exabytes Penang Bloggers & Law Forum 2009 in Penang on 27 June 2009.

(Video of the past eLawyer Blogging & Law Conference which was held on 14 March 2009 at Law Faculty of University of Malaya)

The details of the conference are as follows:

Forum Name: eLawyer - Exabytes Penang Bloggers & Law Forum 2009
Date: 27 June 2009
Time: 9.00am – 12.30pm
Fees: F.O.C.
Venue: Auditorium 1, USAINS, Eureka Complex. (The complex is located at the USM Sungai Dua entrance directly opposite Masjid USM. As you enter the gate, the complex is on your right and the masjid is on your left) 
Language: English
Organiser: www.eLawyer.com.my
This event is exclusively sponsored by www.exabytes.com.my - the No.1 web hosting company in Malaysia

Topic 1: Bloggers & Copyrights Laws
Speaker: Mr. Foong Cheng Leong (Cheng Leong)
Brief profile: Cheng Leong is a practising lawyer in KL. He specialises in intellectual property laws practice. He is an active blogger and owner of www.xes.cx. Cheng Leong started blogging since 2001. He speaks frequently on intellectual property and internet laws.

Topic 2: Bloggers & Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998 (MCMC Act) and rules and guidelines of MCMC
Speaker: Mr.Shamsul Jafni Shafie (Sam)
Brief profile: Sam is the former director of Security, Trust and Governance Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. He was also the Work Area 5 Leader on “International Cooperation” to draft the Global Cybersecurity Agenda for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - http://www.itu.int.

Topic 3: Bloggers & Defamation Law
Speaker: Mr. Stephen Tan Ban Cheng (Stephen)
Brief profile: Stephen is a journalist-turned-lawyer. Currently, he is a practising lawyer in Penang. Stephen was a senior journalist in the famous local newspaper including New Strait Times and the Star for more than 20 years.

Moderator: Mr. Khairul Anuar bin Shaharudin (Kruel)
Brief profile: Kruel is the cybername for Khairul, who is a practising lawyer in KL and an avid bloggers. Kruel participated in numerous bloggers events and his blog Legal Cat-asthrophereceived well comments from the bloggersphere in Malaysia.

Registration: The admission to this Forum is FREE. However, due to limited seat, please R.S.V.P by sending your details (Name, Tel, Email, Occupation and Company/School) to forum@elawyer.com.my before 9pm 26 June 2009 (extended) 1st come 1st serve or call 03-2782 5399 for more information.

See you at the forum!

Exclusive Sponsor:

Exa Bytes Network Sdn Bhd

Supporting Organisations:

Penang Bar Committee

Universiti Sains Malaysia

Online Media Partners:

www.NuffNang.com

www.MalaysiaKini.com

www.PetalingStreet.org

www.MerdekaReview.com

Webmaster Malaysia Forum
www.WebmasterMalaysia.com

Don’t miss it. See you at the forum!

Written by RODNEY KHOR

The legal profession has always been a highly regulated profession with rules, regulations and codes of conduct binding on members of the profession1. This comes as no surprise due to the nature of the legal profession being very interconnected with the mechanisms of the working of law itself. The general duties among other things include a duty to assist the courts in the administration of justice and this duty overrides the duty towards lay clients.

Despite the profession being highly regulated, there are circumstances that would warrant or attract a foreign practitioner2 to practise law in countries such as Malaysia3. Therefore, this article is narrowed down to concentrate on identifying the possibility for a foreign practitioner to practise law or to provide in-house legal advice in Malaysia.

The admission of legal practitioners in Malaysia is governed by section 114 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The requirements under this section amongst other things require a qualified person5 not to have been convicted in Malaysia or elsewhere of a criminal offence that would render him unfit to be a member of his profession or done any other act which, if being a barrister or solicitor in England, would render him liable to be disbarred, disqualified or suspended from practice. These requirements, one way or another, are common due to
the standard expected of potential legal practitioners.

In addition, he must either be a citizen of Malaysia or a resident of Malaysia and has satisfactorily completed the prescribed period of pupillage6. If a qualified person were to petition to the High Court to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor, there is a requirement that he has passed or is exempted7 from the Bahasa Malaysia8 Qualifying Examination9. This is the main route for admission amongst private legal practitioners in Malaysia10.

The difficulty that most foreign practitioners would face is the requirement under section 11(c), requiring them to be either a citizen or a resident of Malaysia and the Bahasa Malaysia Qualifying Examination requirement under section 11(2). In addition, a foreign practitioner would have to undergo a minimum prescribed period of pupillage of 3 months11. There are limited exceptions12 to this and if the requirements are not satisfied, a foreign practitioner will not be able to gain right of audience in the Malaysian courts13. An established foreign practitioner with many years of experience may find the requirements for pupillage discouraging. However, despite their experience, this requirement is meant to expose them to the Malaysian legal procedures14.

However, the exception that is normally applicable to a foreign practitioner being instructed to appear for a particular case is the admission in special cases under section 18 of the Act. This section enables a foreign practitioner to practise as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia for a particular case15. However, the court must be of the opinion that for the purpose of the particular case, the foreign practitioner has special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia and has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia16.

Cherie Booth QC, attempted to rely on section 18(1) applied for an ad hoc admission into the Malaysian Bar after being instructed to appear for a particular case. However, the application was refused by the High Court Kuala Lumpur and it was subsequently appealed to the Federal Court17. The judgment of the court considered the requirement of ‘special qualifications or experience’ by referring to established judicial precedents in Malaysia18. The court subsequently concluded, “special qualifications and experience under section 18(1)(a) of the LPA refers to the particular field of the law which that particular case is related and not in respect of each and every issue that arises in that case19”.

Therefore, if a foreign practitioner is in possession of the requisite qualifications or experience in a particular field of law that is relevant to the particular case that he intends to appear, then he would have satisfied the first requirement under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. However, the second requirement under same section must be satisfied in addition to the first. The special qualifications and experience must not be available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.

The Federal Court20 subscribed to the observation on the words ‘not available’ by Sharma J in Re S.K. Lee21. The special qualifications or experience that is required under section 18(1)(a) must be of a high degree of quality and type which cannot be found in local lawyers. Therefore, a foreign practitioner will have to persuade the Court22 that his special qualifications and experience satisfies both requirements.

An alternative to practising as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia is to provide in-house legal advice23. This is a viable alternative for foreign practitioners because the procedures24 are not as stringent comparatively with the former if an arrangement for employment has been secured25. The limitation that most foreign practitioners would have is the knowledge and experience with regard to relevant local laws. However, foreign practitioners with multi-national legal experience may find their legal knowledge and experience useful in assisting companies in their international transactions or investments.

In summary, there are 3 main methods for a foreign practitioner to enter the legal profession in Malaysia. The first method is to gain admission as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia via the normal route that local practitioners use. However, the difficulty faced under this method may either be due to the language requirement or the residency requirement. The second method is to obtain special admission in particular cases. However, the difficulty that a foreign practitioner will face is to satisfy the requirements under s.18(1) of the Act. Additionally, admission under this route will only be permitted for that particular case. It is therefore not a viable long-term consideration. The third method would be to gain employment to provide inhouse legal advice. Although a foreign practitioner may not practise law locally under this route, he may nonetheless enter the legal profession in Malaysia without the difficulties faced by the previous methods.

Despite the difficulties faced by foreign practitioners to gain admission into the Malaysian Bar, the legal profession in general whether as a practitioner or an inhouse legal advisor has always been a challenging career. This is due to the continuing need to be updated with regard to changes in the law. The law is not stagnant and is ever changing with times, circumstances and society. Therefore, if a foreign practitioner truly does have the passion to practise law in Malaysia, then the methods considered above are worth a consideration.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Footnote:
1 Barristers-at-law are being regulated by the Bar Council (Today, a separate and independent
regulatory body known as the Bar Standards Board regulates barristers-at-law in England and Wales)
and solicitors being regulated by the Law Society. In a country with a fused profession, the regulatory
body may either be the Bar Council such as Malaysia or the Law Society such as Singapore.

2 A foreign practitioner for purposes of this article is defined as a practitioner in possession of legal
qualifications and right of audience outside Malaysia.

3 The legal profession in Malaysia is a fused profession and is governed by the Bar Council. A legal
practitioner in Malaysia is known as an Advocate and Solicitor.

4 s.1(1) Legal Profession Act 1976 is subject to s.14.

5 s.3 of the Act states that “a ‘qualified person’ means any person who (a) has passed the final
examination leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws of the University of Malaya, the University of
Malaya in Singapore, the University of Singapore or the National University of Singapore; (b) is a
barrister-at-law of England; or (c) is in possession of such other qualification as may by notification in
the Gazette be declared by the Board to be sufficient to make a person a qualified person for the
purposes of this Act.” The Legal Profession Qualifying Board may require foreign practitioners with
certain qualifications to sit for the Certificate in Legal Practice before satisfying paragraph c above.
There are requirements that must be satisfied to sit for the Certificate in Legal Practice. Visit
www.malaysianbar.org.my/admission_requirements.html to determine the entry requirements.

6 See s.12 of the Act on the period of pupilage. However, s.13(3) provides exemption for a qualified
person from any period up to six months subject to the Bar Council’s sole discretion upon satisfactory
evidence that the applicant has amongst other things, engaged in active practice as a legal practitioner by whatever name called in any part of the Commonwealth for a period of not less than six months.

7 A qualified person may be exempted by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board by virtue of s.5(f) and
11(2) of the Act if he has obtained at least a credit in Bahasa Malaysia for his Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

8 Translated in English to mean Malaysian language

9 s.11(2) of the Act.

10 Whether being admitted by virtue of being a qualified person due to a recognised degree in law from
a local public institute of higher learning, a barrister-at-law in England, or being in possession of any
other qualifications that is recognised by the Qualifying Board such as a Certificate in Legal Practice or
a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, England.

11 The period of 3 months is based on the maximum exemption possible under section 13 of the Act.

12 The only exceptions are the admission in special cases under s.18 of the Act and special admission
certificates issued by the Attorney General under s.28B of the Act.

13 This includes the High Courts and Subordinate Courts.

14 There is also a similar requirement on pupillage amongst other things to admit qualified foreign
practitioners into the Bar of England and Wales under Regulation 36 of the Consolidated Regulations
of The Inns of Court and The General Council of The Bar (November 2008). However, the Transferring Qualified Lawyers Panel of the Qualifications Committee may exempt the applicant from
all or part of the requirements for pupillage.

15 s.18(1), Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Court may, for the purpose of any one
case and subject to the following subsections, admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor any person who, if he was a citizen of, or a permanent resident in, Malaysia, would be eligible to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court.

16 s.18(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

17 Cherie Booth QC v. Attorney General, Malaysia & 5 others, 2006 [FC]

18 Para. 13 – 15, Ibid.

19 Para. 17, Ibid.

20 Para. 19, Ibid.

21 (1971) 2 MLJ 40

22 The court will consider the relevant issue in the particular case in light of the applicant’s special
qualifications and experience.

23 However, a foreign practitioner providing in-house legal advice who has not been admitted as an
advocate and solicitor in Malaysia will not be able to represent himself as being a qualified practitioner
to practise law locally. The limitations on foreign practitioners are limited to providing in-house legal
advice and not perform any act that would contravene s.37 of the Act.

24 For the procedures, visit http://www.imi.gov.my/eng/perkhidmatan/im_PegawaiDagang.asp

25 An arrangement for employment with a Malaysian law firm may be applicable if the requirements by
the Immigration Department of Malaysia are satisfied. However, the limitations under s.37 of the Act
will still apply because an employment with a Malaysian law firm does not necessarily enable a foreign
practitioner to represent himself as being a qualified practitioner to practise law locally.

Do you want to work in law firm but without a law degree?

The Malaysian Academy of Legal Secretaries (MALS) has now worked together with the Human Resources Ministry to provide free training for fresh graduates, unemployed youth and retrenched workers to become legal secretaries for the law firms and banking institutions.

Not only the tution fees for the legal training course is FREE, Human Resources Ministry will further provide allowances ranging from RM500 to RM800 for participants.

Based on the reports on various newspaper, below are the brief summary about the course:

1. Name of the certificates: Sijil Litigasi Perbankan & Sijil Conveyancing Perbankan

2. Duration: 4 months

3. Commencement of Course: 15 June 2009

4. Location: Semua House in Kuala Lumpur

5. Age limit: 17 - 45 years old (but those who are above 45 years old and being retrenched can also apply for the course)

6. Qualification: minimum Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM)

7. Admission limitation: 200 participants for the 1st batch (however, they aim to produce 1,000 legal secretaries via their course by end of the year)

8. Topics to be covered: litigation, loan recovery and land ownership transfer

9. Contact: Mr.Mohan（012-3984444) or Cik Mariana（012-2995541) or register with the Human Resources Ministry (www.JobMalaysia.gov.my) or contact the academy via e-mail at mals.fzalegal@gmail.com.

MALS managing director, Fatimah Zainuddin said:

1. there are about 500 vacancies for legal secretaries in the Malaysia

2. the starting salary for legal secretaries is RM1,200 - RM1,500 and with good performance, the salary can raise to RM5,000 in 10 years time

3. MALS will try to help the particpants to secure jobs

eLawyer deems this is a good move and new development in the legal career in Malaysia. However, we doubt if the salary can raise up to RM5,000 within 10 years, in particular, for secretaries work in law firms.

The KL Bar Young Lawyers Committee and the KL Bar Professional Development Commitee have jointly organised The Young Lawyers Speed Track Legal Practise Management Course 2009 on 22 May 2009.

The course is aimed to equip young lawyers with the essential practise management skill and knowledge in various fields of practice.

We has set up our booth during the 1 day conference and our founder, Mr Eddie Law was also one of the speakers for conference, who spoke on “Using Technology in Malaysian Legal Practice”.

Eddie told the participants that Malaysian law firms ”under-use” technology in managing their practice. Apart from using technology to manage daily legal practice, in fact, law firms in Malaysia can take the advantage of internet, to seek for free legal resources available online and, to build branding of the law firm online and being easily found in the search engine. How overseas law firms are using social networking sites to create strong online presence.

When talking about Facebook, he told that lawyers in Australia and New Zealand had successfully persuaded the court to allow them to use Facebook to serve legal documents to the parties involve, e.g. Summon and notification.   

The conference was well attended with about 80 lawyers.

 The Chairman of KL Bar Young Lawyers Comittee, Mr Lai Chee Hoe and Eddie.

On May 6, we were told by one of our readers that the law graduates of Malaysia Multimedia University (MMU) is now exempted from the Certificate of Legal Practise (CLP) Exam. In fact, the reader came to know about this from a student’s blog .

After doing some preliminary verification, we immediately posted a thread at eLawyer Facebook announcing this ”gospel”. To our surprise, in less than 2 days we received a total of 22 comments on the thread which consist of mixture feedback (some welcome, some disappointed, some happy about it and some were upset comments).

On 14 May, based on a reliable unofficial source, MMU have in fact received the exemption letter from the Legal Profession Qualifying Board few weeks ago. They have communicated this information to the existing students. However, till today there is yet any official announcement on this matter. We believe this is due to the fact that such exemption is only effective and valid after the same have been gazetted per Section 3 of the Legal Profession Act, like what happen in UUM case.  

We were further told that such exemption will be reviewed by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board every 2 years.

(more…)