|
 There should have been no necessity to write this, but circumstances did not
permit such luxury. Here we go. On 8 September 2007, the Bar Council is set to
discuss (again!) an issue which has been thrashed out ad nauseam -
whether young lawyers committees should exist in all states Bars. The NYLC
thinks so. On 2 December 2006 at the 10th Council meeting, the previous Council
thought so.
Bar associations in other respectable jurisdictions are of the same view. In
Shanmuga Kanesalingam’s research presented to the NYLC, he concluded that in the
UK, America and Singapore, there “remains young lawyer committees to look into
the unique needs and general welfare of newer members of the Bar”. He said:
“i]t seems to be recognised that is in the interests of the profession for more
junior members to be given some form of cohesive structure in order to
articulate their concerns and to interact with each other”.
Some references are relevant:
• United Kingdom
The Young Barristers’ Committee of the Bar Council of England and Wales has its
terms of reference as follows:
“a. [t]o advise the representative committees of the Bar Council and their
sub-committees on all matters which appear to the Young Barristers’ Committee to
be of particular concern to young barristers, or upon which advice is sought by
other representative committees or sub-committees of the Bar Council, … [and] b.
[t]o take such steps as seem likely to promote the interests of the Young Bar
having regard to the interests of the Bar as whole.”
(http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/aboutthebarcouncil/committeemembers/youngbarristerscommittee/)
• America
The American Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division spawns a web of
activities. Its mission statement reads:
“The Young Lawyers Division's mission is to further the Association's goals and
purposes, and thereby to serve the community and the legal profession; to
represent young lawyers in the Association, and to represent the Association to
young lawyers; to help shape the policies and priorities that affect young
lawyers and the legal culture in which they practice; and to create a
deliberative forum for the exchange and expression of young lawyers' views, and
a voice to advocate those views.
We accomplish our mission through the combined efforts of the Assembly, Council,
Executive Board, committees, special projects, liaisons to other Association
entities, and the Division's affiliated state and local bar young lawyer groups.
The Division's meetings and conferences include several different kinds of
programming - public service, affiliate outreach, bar leadership, member
service, professional development, and continuing legal education - that benefit
both affiliate organizations, and individual young lawyers. Our committee
structure is extensive, with over 30 substantive and standing committees that
generate programs on topics as diverse as health care law, family law, dispute
resolution, and programs that promote child advocacy and protection, minorities
in the profession, ethics, law practice management, and women in the
profession.”
(http://www.abanet.org/yld/whoarewe.html)
The language used is not very different from that adopted by the NYLC in the
‘Selesa Conclusions’.
• Singapore
The Singapore Law Society’s Annual Report 2006 in detailing the work of its
Young Lawyers Committee states:
“The Young Lawyers Committee (‘YLC’) caters specifically to the needs and
concerns of members with less than seven years of practice (the junior
category).
This group warrants particular attention due to the large proportion of young
lawyers in the membership and we are pleased that several active and
enthusiastic young lawyers came forward to make a difference to the professional
development and personal growth of their peers.”
Among others, the Report highlights the strong working relationship between the
young lawyers of Malaysia and Singapore:
“The most significant event of the year was the Young Lawyers Forum that was
conducted in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Presidents of Law
Associations in Asia hosted by the Society, also known as the POLA Conference.
Twenty young lawyers from Malaysia joined 70 young lawyers from Singapore at
this Forum that discussed the roles and responsibilities of young lawyers in the
profession and in the community …”
(http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/annualreport/growing/young.html)
Probably for the first time in the history of both Bars, official ties by the
young lawyers committees were engendered resulting in a genuine and continuing
enrichment of young lawyers on both sides of the border.
A similar structure is evidenced in the following countries:
• Australia
The Law Council of Australia houses the Australian Young Lawyers' Committee
which “exists to represent young lawyers at a national level, to speak on behalf
of them on national issues, and to promote the administration of justice, access
to justice, and general improvement of the law”. Representatives of nine young
lawyer bodies throughout Australia sit on the said Committee.
(http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/committees.html#AYL)
• Scotland
The Scottish Young Lawyers Association established in 1974 seeks to “represent,
educate and entertain” young Scottish lawyers. It specifically aims to:
“organise conferences, seminars and study groups; to represent the interests of
members in all matters relating to the teaching and practice of law; to
represent the views of members; to establish and maintain relations with other
associations/bodies of young lawyers anywhere in the world; to publish or
co-operate in the publishing of books, articles, papers, pamphlets and styles
relating to the substance and practice of the law of Scotland; and to provide
opportunities for social contact between young lawyers both in Scotland and
elsewhere”
(http://www.syla.co.uk/about_qa.php)
Regional and global conglomerate bar associations have recognised the importance
of young lawyer platforms. The European Young Bar Association represents over
200,000 young lawyers throughout Europe (http://www.eyba.org/subtopic.asp?TID=31&SID=93), LAWASIA has a Young Lawyers Standing Committee (http://www.lawasia.asn.au/content/cms/Young+Lawyers+Standing+Committee/165/)
and the International Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Committee (http://www.ibanet.org/publicprofinterest/Young_Lawyers.cfm)
seeks to “further the interests and objectives of young lawyers around the
world”.
Hence, why is the inquiry now being held in the Malaysian context? Anecdotal
remarks have suggested that there should be no distinction between the ‘young’
and the ‘old’; and that the young lawyers are ‘dividing the Bar’ post-46A
repeal. It is of course the prerogative of anyone to question and re-open
contested questions. The intention must surely be to contribute constructively
or multiply the social utility in conducting a re-hash of the debate. But it
should not form a metaphorical shield to justify insular practices.
To un-pack the arguments would require one to ask the following questions. Who
are making these remarks? Why are they being made? Is there an underlying
context? Why have none of the criticisms been made public? Are the young lawyers
perpetuating the purported divide or in actuality uniting the Bar?
Note that in jurisdictions where young lawyers committees are in existence, the
baggage of legalised discrimination tailored in 46A is absent. To conflate the
establishment of young lawyers platforms as solely motivated by the 46A
prohibition is to confuse the issue. This much is clear.
The reality is probably one of control. This is an era where ‘old’ issues are
being dealt with in ‘new’ ways. We have a great deal of similar issues being
played up in different arenas, in various behavioural patterns. And the Bar is
evolving. Evolving quickly, I might add.
Some say that for far too long, the Bar has been in an ‘ivory tower’, that it is
too comfortable, looking down at others and pronouncing statements from afar.
Some like it that way. But in this day and age, we cannot command the respect,
and expect to lead public opinion without the concomitant recognition that we
cannot do it alone. The disconnect is evident - within the Bar and outside of
it. However, what is really happening is that young lawyers at ground level
provide the crucial link to close the gap, and energy to promote the Bar’s
interests in society.
If the young lawyers committees are perceived as a threat to the power structure
built up throughout the history of the Bar then so be it. If young lawyers wish
to agitate change or reform for greater inclusiveness in governance then let it
be. But arguments about young lawyers dividing the Bar are none other than
attempts to curtail the collective voice and aspiration of every member who is
interested in genuine progression. It has never been the goal of the young
lawyers to challenge inherent comfort zones, but if the inevitable effect of the
committees’ work makes things uncomfortable, the final solution cannot be to
obliterate the committees.
There is another perspective, one which is slightly more hidden. It is this.
When young lawyers are needed to decide on a menu for a Bar dinner or organise a
talk or gather friends for an AGM, they are called upon. A failure to carry out
the task successfully is a failure of the ‘young lawyers’. When the ills of
practice befall some in the profession and clients’ money are unlawfully
siphoned, young lawyers are blamed. And do we still ‘talk down’ to young lawyers
and pupils-in-chambers, but not render humane respect? Yet during election
period, some wholeheartedly declare support of and seek to protect the interests
of young lawyers to ensure they share a fair bargain in practice.
One gets the basic picture: when the young lawyers are needed, they are
everything; when they are not, they divide the Bar. Have the young lawyers been
part of this process? Or are the young lawyers inheriting the ‘traditions’ of
the Bar?
The young lawyers committees have always endeavoured to work with all members of
the Bar. But until a few terms ago, ask how many times pre-46A that the current
spirit of inclusiveness has been practiced to have young lawyers in various
committees, sincerely. Ask how young lawyers are treated when they present their
views before these committees, even now undoubtedly. Ask why some still fear
sitting in some of these committees. And this is truth from the ground.
To critique the work of the young lawyers committees over the years is
encouraged. Activities are open for audit. If the work creates mayhem, then it
is time to close the committees. But take a second, or perhaps a third look.
Attacking the fact of existence as opposed to questioning the work is oblique.
Substance is quite surely more important than form. And ask how little have been
spent on our activities from the Bar’s coffers compared with other programmes
where specific funds are provided.
At both levels within the Bar, and society, was there an ill-advised initiative
undertaken by the committees? Our work has not only strengthened links intra-Bar
but contributed to nation-building within society. Un-masking these in practice
necessarily meets the arguments of the theorists of ‘division’ and other
detractors. The fault, probably, of the committees lie in having taken on too
much, trying too many new things - there is a need to focus, nevertheless there
is much to do. But to say that we are splitting the Bar?
As lawyers, we are linked. We are a globalised legal identity destined to uphold
the rule of law and united in the struggle for freedom and justice. Yet, there
is no compulsion for one to be recognised as ‘young’. There is a platform if you
wish, and everyone has the absolute option to opt-out, to be an apostate, so to
speak. If senior members wish to contribute in the committees, all are welcomed,
there is no bar. The mantra has been to stand guided by every member of the Bar
subject of course that the views adopted do nothing but furthers the Bar’s
cause. In confirmation, young lawyers have been working in close and successful
co-operation with their respective State Bar committees and with Council the
past few terms.
It was hoped that this debate would have ended when Council adopted the decision
on 2 December 2006. But the appearances of misgivings and doubts require an
engagement, and a reaction.
Easy to think of moving pass these formative arguments after an examination of
our work which has also extended into the national sphere. One probably has not
seen in the years of the Bar so many hard-working, vocal and intelligent young
lawyers genuinely interested in the Bar’s activities, and who concertedly wish
to contribute towards shaping our future collectively, as opposed to allowing
the future shape them. Don’t discourage this revivalism. We cannot publicly and
continually invite members to contribute and at the same time find reasons to
exclude them. As the workforce for many initiatives, we have seen strength in
numbers of the young lawyers. If the State Bars are without the committees (just
as the quorum required for our AGMs have reduced) we will soon start to see
diluted participation, and a return to greater elitism among the upper echelons.
It will begin the end. The vaunted monopoly sheltered in 46A and sought to be
neutralised at the dawn of the movement to repeal the divide will prevail.
The young lawyers platform must be seen as putting in action what some may only
chat about as plans to unite or to work. It means this - giving meat to the
skeleton, and flesh around the bones.
I am confident that just as Council on 2 December 2006 did, this Council will
make the right decision. Thereafter, we should move on and leave this debate.
The question should no longer be “whether to” but “how to”.
 |
Committees 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Registration Brochure
M
y dear Edmund
The National Young Lawyers' Committee of the Malaysian Bar is doing a good job. Obviously, there will be detractors with their own reasons.
I am more than confident that under your leadership, the committee will supplement and complement the work done by the Bar Council.
Just keep at it and leave the detractors alone to bark like dogs while the caravan moves on to bigger, better and greater things.
I am more than confident that the young lawyers will be able to distinguish between the positiveness of doing something good and noble for our profession, our society and our nation and the negativeness of pouring water on these worthwhile efforts by your band of younag, gallant and enthusiastic lawyers.
"The dogs barked and the caravan moved on," so wrote T.J.S. George in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. So let the caravan carrying your vision for the future move on ...
Stephen Tan Ban Cheng