By Lee Shih
Thirteen thousand. That is roughly the number of lawyers currently practising in Malaysia. It gives the impression that there are more than enough lawyers here. So why should we worry if a few hundred, or even a thousand, lawyers leave the profession to work in other jurisdictions?
Around 1,000 new lawyers join the profession annually so shouldn’t there be plenty of legal talent here in this country?
There is, however, cause for worry. Increasingly, law firms are complaining of a general decline in the quality of lawyers entering the profession. Our brightest and best law graduates are choosing instead to practise in other countries.
Further, the pace of lawyers leaving Malaysia for other jurisdictions like Singapore, Hong Kong and the Middle East appears to have also accelerated, and this exacerbates the legal brain drain that we are facing.
In her Putik Lada article ‘Not as Glamorous as Boston Legal’ (The Star, Aug 15), Melissa Tai touched on some of the problems the profession faces in attracting and retaining legal talent. What I will be setting out is a wish list of sorts and some solutions to this problem.
Wish List
At the top of any lawyer’s wish list would be the obvious factor of higher pay. Undoubtedly, other jurisdictions offer a significantly more attractive remuneration package, even after factoring in the higher cost of living.
It is accepted that present market forces result in relatively low legal fees being charged, which in turn contributes to a relatively low amount of pay compared with other jurisdictions.
The difficulty in attracting lawyers to stay in Malaysia goes beyond the issue of pay. One of the strong appeals of working overseas is the opportunity to be exposed to more international and high-calibre work. There is no easy answer to this, as other countries like Singapore, for example, also grapple with the same issue of lawyers leaving for this reason.
One possible solution could be a controlled liberalisation of the Malaysian legal market to allow foreign law firms to practise in Malaysia. This may help to provide international exposure within a local setting. This idea has been in the pipeline for many years and it remains to be seen when it will be implemented.
Steps which law firms themselves can take would include a change in the work culture and the general improvement of the work-life balance of their lawyers. Firms may need to restructure the work and careers of their lawyers to meet both the firm’s needs and the lawyers’ personal priorities.
Law firms must also recognise that up to 70% of the younger lawyers are women and that part-time and flexible work arrangements have to be offered. The existence of family-friendly parental leave schemes would be more beneficial than having such talent leave practice altogether.
Bringing back respect to the profession
Taking a step back from what law firms can do, there is the more over-arching issue that must be addressed. Respect must be brought back into the profession in order to continue to attract and retain our brightest talent.
Firstly, the starting point has to be the improvement of the quality of law graduates entering the profession. Hence, the announcement of a Common Bar Examination is welcomed and it must be compulsory for all graduates, whether from local or foreign universities, to pass the Common Bar Course before they are admitted to the Bar. Everyone has to go through the same gatekeeper, and higher standards can be more easily maintained.
The implementation of the Common Bar Course would have to go hand-in-hand with an improvement to the present pupillage system. Pupillage is the compulsory nine-month period in which a law graduate undergoes training with a senior lawyer to gain practical experience before being admitted to the Bar.
A proper pupillage structure for the determination of certain core skills, the teaching of such core skills by the senior lawyer or the law firm, and an assessment of such skills must be put in place.
Secondly, an essential aspect of bringing back respect into the profession is the need for an efficient and strong judicial system. The frustration of having cases unduly postponed or court hearing dates being fixed more than five years down the road will drive lawyers away from practice in Malaysia.
The surfacing of images of a lawyer apparently brokering the appointment of judges leads us to question the integrity of the judicial system. The sluggish investigation into the findings resulting from this apparent brokering of judges and the stalling of the implementation of the Judicial Appointments Commission also raises doubts on the sincerity for judicial reform.
Conclusion
The fall-out from the subprime crisis has resulted in large lay-offs from major law firms in America and in England. China, post-Beijing Olympics, may well also experience some slowdown. The effect of these events is that it may result in a brief respite from the exodus of legal talent from Malaysia as job opportunities in other jurisdictions may become harder to come by.
But immediate steps must be taken to allow us to continue to attract and retain our legal talent. The solutions I have touched on are not exhaustive but may well go a long way to plugging the legal brain drain we are experiencing.
personally, i felt the legal profession is one of the least respected profession because of the people’s perception towards the lawyers. The attitude of the lawyers made people felt less confident on them too! We really need to revamp and patch things up.
it would definitely be great if the pupillage system can be brought forward because i think it is better for the soon-to-be lawyers to learn and gain more from the senior lawyers and make mistakes rather than doing it after they become a certified lawyer.
Is implementing the CBE the best solution? Maybe i have personal interest in this, because i felt unfair towards the local law students. We need to go through STPM which takes up 2 years, then get into a local uni, which takes up 4 years with 156 credit hours to be cleared within the whole course, compared to 130 credit hours we used to have. i think the law students had the most credit hours compared to other courses in the campus. Now, you can get a picture on syllabus that needed to be covered by us within the 4 years. If not, we will have to extend another year.
With CBE, we need to sit for another exam, wait for the result and pass the exam. Then, we need to go through another 9 months of chambering. It is indeed a lenghty period for us to go through although there is no rush for education.
Some of us felt cheated. if we had known this earlier, we would have probably take up loans and study in private colleges if CBE is introduced, to save time. I don’t mean with a standard requirement for all law grads aren’t good. But, the main problem here is clear instructions were not given to us, whether should we reduce our course to 3 years? we are left in a jungle looking for the light to guide us out of it.
The CBE is always good to be introduced if proper measures had been taken before implementing it. There is no harm having something good because it is for the purpose of having a standard recognization for all law students, so there would not be a vast distinction among lawyers when they have graduated.
further, observing at one of the colleges offering law course in collaboration with an external uni, i could see that local undergrads learn MUCH much more than private grads. their understanding towards local admistration of justice is definitely wider than others. Command of English might be a losing factors for some local grads, but overall, the 2 courses truly differ
thanks undergrad for sharing this!
well, it is tough to be a law student! Hectic life style! I had soaked half of my body into it, and there is no turning back and giving up for what i had chosen right now…
I always wish that i could have more time and hands to finish all the tutorials and assignments….etcetc (though it seemed naive to think that way..:p)
hopefully things will get better, if CBE is implemented!Not vice versa!
From what I understand, the structure for the CBE is far from finalised. The time frame for implementation of the CBE could be anywhere from 4 – 6 years from now. I agree that for any CBE to be implemented, a sufficient time frame must be given in order for all students to make an informed decision as to which route they want to take, whether it be locally or overseas.
It is still too preliminary for anyone to make any assumptions on the way the CBE will be structured. But I still stand by the basic idea that a common examination must be put in place in order to raise the general standards of the profession. It must act as a gatekeeper in order to set out clearly what are the minimum standards expected to take the next step towards qualification and the legal profession also play a part in determining what are these minimum standards.
well, i just cant wait for the CBE to be implemented, yes it may be prejudicial to local law grads but please external students like need it badly. Definitely govt wont do anything that will affect local grads they mite reduce the study years to three years or mite not implement to local grads separately mite inject them as part of the course so u guys don’t worry . Just think bout us who pay so much in british pounds and did a toughest UK Law paper and end up in third class honors which stuck, Cannot do CLP , cannot do anything related real law, cant have any exposure to our local law, can even answer anybody if ask bout our law.. Plz advocate for CBE and its lower requirement
It would be a good thing if the course will be reduced to 3 years. If i am not mistaken, the Common Bar Courses is similar to what our faculty is doing currently! Well, we just need to wait and observe what will be implemented!:)
If i m not mistaken that CBE structure is more emphasizing in pratical practice which the law grads had to get hand on experience for all law matters. The duration is about 1 and half year time which the law grads can pratice the theoritical into the real pratice in order to raise up the standard of our lawyers.(correct if i m wrong). But i agree with debs that four year courses must reduce to 3 years(it is because in local uni, final year paper is more emphasise in practical practice). Thus, if CBE is implemented, then i hope that the uni will reduce the duration of the law courses.
I still remember that a speech given by one of representative from the bar council saying that the courses that offered by local university is already out-dated and revolution must be done to make sure our country legal standard same like our fellow counterpart in Commonwealth countries.
Furthermore, from the talk, we are being told that in future, all the practicising lawyers have to collect merit/points in order to get their practising certificate or sijil anual annually. The merit point will be collected through attending various legal seminar organised by bar council which the current rpeactising lawyer can always keep abreast with the latest development.
I personally feel that CBE is a good system and the revolution taken by the Bar council is a good move in repairing the image of lawyers which once upon a time, considered as most respected profession in Malaysia.