The petrina7 MicroUniverse

What is an effective lawyer?

this question was one i found myself asking myself at the end of a simulated negotiation exercise, after we had discussed our various approaches in conducting negotiations. notably, one group was described as' incongruent bastards' who couldn't make up their minds as to whether to be nice or to kill the other side. :P

nevertheless, it was really the lecturer's last throw away remark which struck me - that the lawyer who was naive to believe the wily opposing party was really an ineffective lawyer.

then, the question presented itself : - What, then, is an effective lawyer?

the first thing that comes to mind is "one who gets the job done". this avoids the labels of 'naive', 'aggressive', 'cunning' and so many other adjectives that are thrown about - but it is not entirely helpful.
reflecting on my past legal positions and the advisory capacity of both, i found myself being hemmed in by these labels and the lack of clarity about what i needed to achieve. it seemed a very intangible mess.

therefore, it follows that in order to be effective, you must know your objectives. what you need to achieve. this is so obvious it's something easy to miss (!) esp in the face of impending deadlines and pressures from clients and bosses. and/or incompetent support staff.

the second is the throwing off of unhelpful labels. it is good to retain a sense of equilibrium and self knowledge, in order to escape being trapped by a certain image or portrayal. i wanted to be 'nice' so badly i ended up forgetting that there was a bigger objective requiring my attention. naivete cannot last forever, but it is a burden i'd like to let go of, thank you.

i can't say i will become an effective lawyer immediately, but if i do choose to reenter the arena, you can be sure i would take this into consideration and focus on these - apart from polishing up my legal skills.

i only managed to find time to read the online Star paper when i came across Dr Azmi's reply to Gopal Sri Ram's statement inter alia that:

"the standard of lawyers, most of whom graduated from local universities, range from the good to the grotesque...
Many of them are bad because of the low-quality training they received at local institutions of higher learning"

Azmi's response is excellent, and i am in total agreement with all the points he raised.

Here i'd like to add on my two sens' worth in responding to Gopal Sri Ram's statement from my perspective as a graduate of UM. i will also consider other criticisms which have been levelled at local law graduates in the process.

the first and most obvious is the lack of English skills prevalent among most local law graduates. this common complaint has made its rounds and there is a perception that most of us cannot string a proper sentence in English, let alone complete a written submission or write a simple letter to a client.

i believe that students need to recognise the importance of English in legal practice and beyond. i understand that UM has introduced English classes and i commend this move. in fact, i suggest that it be followed up with English for Legal Usage classes to reinforce the skills learned at the basic level. perhaps some may argue that this is unnecessary, but as i see it - lectures are conducted in Malay and tutorials in English so this would be the bridge between both, enabling local law grads to have the best of both worlds i.e. a solid footing in both Malay and English.

the second is the perception that local law graduates are less well-versed in etiquette and street 'smarts' as our foreign counterparts or as Azmi once put it, we don't have chutzpah. we are just too damned polite.
again, this is down to the students' attitude and the faculty in instilling a sense of enquiry and professionalism in its students. this can be done in stages - the talk of soft skills is nothing more than making students realise the importance of other abilities besides being able to understand and memorise legal principles.

we live in a world that is increasingly competitive, and these criticisms must wake us up to where we need to improve. nevertheless, i would also like to highlight the strengths of local law graduates:-

1. a sound grasp of Malaysian law - unless foreign grads have done the CLP, they would be quite ignorant of Malaysian legal principles and even good Malaysian textbooks on the subject. this familiarity often translates into increased research ability to navigate the laborious labyrinths of Malaysian statutes and case law. we are better

2. humility and reliability - on the flipside of lacking the 'street smarts' , local law grads are mostly humble and reliable workers who will ultimately get the job done, which in the results-oriented world of practice, is what counts the most.
'backroom boys and girls'?
i strongly disagree with this statement, but i will refrain from listing famous academics and lawyers who claim UM as their alumni. this is self-explanatory.

i will continue my ideas on improvement in a subsequent blogpost. suffice to say, let this not dent our confidence but give us increased self-belief in moving forward to meet the challenges of the future.

After a good 15 years, finally there is a definitive statement on the adoption of the Common Bar Course (CBC) and Common Bar Examination (CBE) in favour of the CLP Examination which is the current admission point for law students who have neither studied in a local university nor been called to the English Bar.

Is this step a progression or a regression?

It is my view that this represents a progression. That is only if done properly and in accordance with its stated objectives of overcoming the weaknesses inherent in the CLP e.g the overwhelming focus on memory work whereby students are tested in a 3 hour closed book examination and the CLP preparatory course which is heavily exam based as well as the exorbitant exam fees and the lack of transparency in the marking and grading process. The restructuring of the outmoded CLP course - which is severely lacking in practical aspects when compared to its English counterpart is welcomed and will help in preparing students for their pupillage later on.

From a more 'insular' perspective, as I was a product of a local university, I believe that the CBC can rid the profession of the perception that local law undergraduates are behind their overseas trained brethren. By the very fact of their sitting for and passing the CBE, local law undergraduates are given an opportunity that they are equally as capable.

What interests me most, however, is the potential for expansion and reform in the current syllabi adopted by Malaysian law faculties which has been given by this proposal.
The current two-pronged approach of preparing students with a firm grasp of theoretical legal principles and professional training has placed a strain on the faculties with one being emphasised at the expense of the other which ultimately results in lawyers which are not as well-rounded. We cannot have one without the other.

The upshot of this is at last we are seeing closer co-operation between practitioners and academia - the creaky CLP must make way for the sprightly, brand new CBE. And it is my sincere hope as well that this move will make apparent the relation and role both universities and the Bar play in creating lawyers who are dynamic, able in practice and have a firm grasp of the theoretical principles and philosophical underpinnings of the law.

The fact is that we need those in the ivory tower to give us a macro view of the law and to see how much further we can go from where we stand and we need the battle-worn soldiers down in the field to see the law as it is now i.e. a micro view of the law and to understand its actual mechanics.