©The Sun (Used by permission)
I REFER to the proposed Common Bar Course advocated by the Bar Council.
Its president Lim Chee Wee said in a speech on Jan 12 that the legal education sector was "one area that requires a lot of work" and that his assessment was based on feedback from the Bar Council's survey of employability of new law graduates, the examiners of the Certificate of Legal Practice examination papers, and evaluators for the law schools of Universiti Utara Malaysia, Multimedia University and Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin.
Lim said feedback showed graduates lacked proficiency in English, had poor communication skills and poor legal knowledge.
He said that the attorney–general has agreed to the setting up of a task force comprising representatives from stakeholder groups to study and review the state of legal education in Malaysia and to recommend ways to raise standards to a level of excellence.
This objective although sounding good in theory may create unfair restrictions upon those seeking to qualify to practise using the multiple routes of entry into the profession which in the public interest must remain open.
I am concerned here with the emphasis of the Bar Council on the creation of a common point of entry course to be known as the Common Bar Course.
The Bar Council press release, "Bar Council Surveys Explore Employability of New Law Graduates and Working Conditions of Young Lawyers" (Oct 30, 2012) stated that it had conducted two surveys.
The first was an employability survey of new law graduates and the second survey was by the Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee to gather data on the working conditions of younger members.
While the Bar Council National Young Lawyers forum identified shortcomings in remuneration and career development which was openly discussed there, the Bar Council's employability survey revealed that there was a divergence between the expectations and requirements of employers, and the attributes and skill sets of some of the new entrants to the Bar and that these were in "proficiency in spoken and written English", "communication skills", "knowledge of the law" and "commitment to the firm".
The press release went on to state:
Employer–law firms were also concerned over the disparate and multiple routes of entry into the legal profession, which has led to differing standards of learning and training among the new entrants. This appears to be a cause for the disparity in the skill sets and attributes detected by the survey.
An overwhelming majority of employer–law firms felt that a single entry system into the legal profession, as is the case in other jurisdictions, is desirable and viable. To this end, they agreed that a Malaysian Common Bar Course, with a vocational training component, is needed to enhance the employability of new entrants.
I wish to highlight the fact that as a member of the Malaysian Bar, I have observed that the Bar Council is relying on data and feedback collected recently, which was intended for different purposes and objectives, to support their previous proposal for a Common Bar Course.
This proposal was opposed by local universities through a joint memorandum delivered by the Majlis Dekan Undang–Undang IPTA.
I am sceptical about relying on such employer firm surveys to justify a single point of entry system as firms generally are not objective about their employed lawyers and are guided by client feedback which may be inaccurate.
Also high fee collection levels are used to assess these young lawyers where many fine young lawyers have been sidelined for partnership in favour of those more adept at high fee collection than in delivering quality service.
Many clients and many employing lawyers tend to complain about these young lawyers without sound basis. Client complaints are often accepted without substantiation and only serve to drive young lawyers away from legal practice.
It is well known that the Common Bar Course proposal is not supported by any resolution of the Malaysian Bar, which has 13,664 members.
The ad hoc committee set up by the Bar Council to submit the Bar's proposals did not in their workings circulate any questionnaire to the Bar membership body for their input from their experiences drawn from the actualities of practice from the ground and as such this report is incomplete on account of its conclusions not being drawn from feedback from the members.
The course structure of 20 months proposed in the report is too long and only serves to delay entry into the legal profession which will cause delay in law graduates receiving the remuneration that employment gives them to settle their loans and obtain an independent means of living.
This financial difficulty will be compounded for those from poorer backgrounds as well as married students with families.
The Bar Council Ad–Hoc Committee in its report dated Feb 14, 2011 declared that the intention of the Common Bar Course was to "sieve out those who do not possess the requisite qualities/skills". This objective is arbitrary in nature and subjective and will create injustice and generate wide dissatisfaction among students and parents.
The only necessary measures that are required to be taken is to improve the CLP course for those graduates that are required by the Qualifying Board to take it and engaging the deans of law schools in our universities to assist them in improving their course content to meet the Bar's expectations.
This would be the better way forward instead of compelling all law graduates against their will into an additional and repetitive law course with no conceivable benefit.
A further option is to improve the chambering pupil system to incorporate the teaching of advocacy skills and methods, speech and public oration and practical professional vocational courses to augment this nine–month pupillage system to better prepare these graduates for the high expectations of practice.
In any event the Bar has already introduced the compulsory "Continuing Professional Development" programme for all practitioners regardless of seniority and this should suffice to meet any additional training any young practitioner may require.
The council cannot insist on a single point of entry system as The Legal Profession Act 1976 makes provision for the Bar to regulate the education and professional development of practitioners and not for those seeking to enter the profession from the various routes of entry.
The multiple routes must remain open including the examinations of the English Bar Finals and the Law Society as they are of a high standard and this prepares their graduates for practice in any Commonwealth country. The independence of local universities' law schools to train law students for direct entry into the profession must also not be undermined.
I quote the words of Justice Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader in that private practice is the ultimate arbiter as to who remains in practice as only the best can survive to meet the challenges of the legal profession. This is the natural sieve and there is no need for an artificial one created at the premature stage of entry into the profession.
Concerned Member of the Malaysian Bar
Petaling Jaya