Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

This is certainly a timely move to alleviate all the fears caused by the recent reports of CBT cases involving lawyers. However, this sole proprietor issue should be handled with care as there are many sole proprietors who are reputable and trustworthy. Perhaps, it is better for the clients to make a choice between using a partnership and a sole proprietor, taking into consideration of what risk they are going to take and so on and so forth. For eg, a sole proprietor who has more than 40 years of experience would be much better than a new partnership.

Nicole Tan Lee Koon

I do hope that whoever is drawing up the proposed Rules should think of coming up with the exceptions as well. One obvious example, with due respect, is to give exemptions to a retired Judge who wishes to open a sole proprietorship, from such rules as requiring a book-keeper to countersign a clients' account cheque. It would be an insult to such a retired Judge to be subjected to the control of a lay person.

Ng Hong Chai

Let me just comment on the five proposals, one by one, and share my limited experience before I try and give my view on Hong Chai's "exception."

(1) PROHIBITING lawyers from issuing cash or bearer cheques or drawing money from their clients’ accounts via ATMs or online banking services;

Comments (A): When I opened my clients' account, my bank manager who is a good old friend of more than 30 years standing and who has since retired told me never to issue CASH cheques. He also said Clients' Accounts are not entitled to ATM cards. So I opened a personal A/C and even though issued with the ATM card, I have never used it at all because somehow it never worked for me!

I have issued bearer cheques and the bearers have been able to cash the same upon presentation after I had struck out and endorsed the A/C PAYEE stamp printed on the cheques.

• REQUIRING lawyers to issue only account payee cheques;

Comments (B): See Comments (A) above.

• INTRODUCING a two-signatory rule for withdrawals from the clients’ account if it exceeds a certain limit;

Comments (C): How does one do that? Assuming that the rule states that amounts over RM30,000 require two signatures and assuming that I have to issue a RM45,000 cheque, to avoid that, I will just issue two cheques totalling the RM45,000. At the end of the day, we must leave this matter to the tyranny of our "small voice"!

• WHETHER a sole proprietor is required to hire a bookkeeper to comply with the two-signatory rule; and

Comments (D): As a one-man show, the cost of compliance may prove prohibitive. So I will call upon those laying down the rule to think about compliance costs, unless they can come out with a scheme where one-man operators share the same book-keeper.

• ONLY a partner of a firm may sign a cheque to withdraw money from the clients’ account.

Comments (E): I believe this is a fair rule. Even big firms have a rule that not all partners can sign cheques. This is a control mechanism involving a function with a lot of responsibility.

Finally, the point made by my Johore friend, Ng Hong Chai. I beg to differ. I have nothing against Judges or former Judges. What separates them from we lawyers is their appointment to and acceptance of the job on the Bench. Once they retire, they return to the same position if they want to practise. This means they are simply subject to the same rules, whatever these are.

If we were to adopt Hong Chai's proposal, then we might as well have another class of members for the Malaysian Bar. Can we do that without breaching the basic principles of equality and fellowship? If the answer is yes, then proceed. If the answer is in the negative, then desist.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

I am always sceptical about increasing regulation to curb these sorts of excesses. As Stephen has rightly pointed out, such regulations can always be avoided. Why is there more dishonesty? Because of the general culture of corruption that pervades our society now. The general increase in the cost of living, coupled with the reduction of fee income, and the proliferation of lawyers. We need to spend more money, yet earn less money and have to compete with more people. Whilst an honest man full of integrity and of a high and noble character will resist temptation no matter how desperate, how many of us are really like that? About as many as have given a tip to a land office clerk to expedite a land transaction? As many as have tipped a court clerk to get a document out quickly? The bad hats will always be bad hats, no matter how much regulation we have. More regulation will create even more work for honest lawyers, whilst dishonest lawyers will still evade, avoid and ignore the rules.

Shanmuga Kanesalingam

I am just wondering if a partnership of husband and wife, father or mother and son or daughter be allowed, if partnership is made a necessary condition to practice, particularly in the field of conveyancing. In my humble opinion, such partnerships could be more dangerous than sole proprietorships. Could anybody enlighten me?

Ng Hong Chai