eLawyer Law Blog Forum

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.