On Specialization

‘’A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

-A Time Enough for Love, Robert A. Heinlein-

Not too long ago I had a two weeks leave to think on things and the above quote had been one of the things that I have been ruminating on, especially the last part. Setting aside the tantalizing yet entirely theoretical question of immortality (who wants to live forever anyway?) the above quote has always been my favourite because it idealizes what a competent Man is which is what an ideal lawyer should be; an all-around competent Man. Maybe not as dramatic as the above quote, a competent lawyer is not expected to pitch actual manure. The manure in the legal profession thankfully, is metaphorical in nature.

The question of specialization in my legal practice has always been something that came up once every while for me. These days, I am seriously considering its pros and cons.

I came from a banking law background. I did my pupillage at a law firm where bulk of its files are debt recovery work for banks and the first role I had post-Call was as a debt recovery lawyer. Since I was the new guy, it was only natural that most of the shit files would funnel down to me. The almost time barred, the ones with two judgments entered for the same debt, the half-forgotten cruddy mess that had been gathering dust in a corner that nobody wants to touch. Such was my fortune back then and Good Fortune it was. It could be the reason why when a refreshing General file came my way I grabbed it with both hands and legs.

When started my own practice, the Auditor whom I was recommended to for audit purposes in between browsing through my firm’s books attempted to engage me in small talk. He said something along the lines of the need to specialize after 5 years. 'Setiap tahun ada firm baru bukak, semua buat benda sama. Apa beza firm kau dengan firm lain? Sebab tu kau kena specialize'' he said leaning back in his seat looking very wise. He was a seasoned auditor, doing audits for legal practitioners far older than me so he knows what he was on about. I gave it serious consideration about it at that time. For about 5 full minutes at least, before dismissing it as another worry for the far-off future. At that point of time I just wanted to get my accounts straight for my practicing certificate so that I can continue having fun doing what ever comes my way. To hell with specialization.

Then came the future. I was back doing debt recovery and its related non-legal work such as client entertainment and what have you. Time helped me in developing the confidence and thick skin to power through the messiest of files. Then 4 years in, I began to realize or rather, remember the reason why I did not pursue bulk debt recovery files even when my then small practice then had most of the boxes ticked. Sure it is the economic choice of most if not all firms since it pays the bills. Steady stream of income and all that but I could not help but feel there is something missing from it all.

I need the rush. I need the thrill of a fight that only a general file can give me. Making a living and making you feel alive are two different things. But an interesting and well-paying general file does not come my way often. It is not everyday that a spectacular mess comes into being and awaiting its day in court. To be dependent on general files alone is a big risk and not commercially viable, unless it’s the kind of file that can keep the lights on and your family fed for months on end. So, I ventured out into areas like Industrial Court matters, construction and such. Just to look for that new kind of kick and the moolahs. I get it from time to time but I still have no niche area of my own. I am for now, a generalist. I am Jack.

The way I see it, general practice, is akin to having the competency in the use of one’s fist in a fight. A pugilist. Maybe the moves varies but all you must rely on are your fists. All you have to do is clench them. Gloves are optional.  

What I know is that general practice is about being thoroughly competent that so long as its about fighting in courts and tribunals, you know what to do for you have the rules and tactics already in your head no matter how outlandish the subject matter of the dispute is. It is all muscle memory to you. You know what to do when a nasty left hook comes your way.

Specialized practitioners on the other hand are your cold and hot weapon experts, your Arquebusiers and Zweihanders. Within their area of competence they are deadly. They are the subject matter expert, masters of their art and they command the big bucks (or so I was told). By virtue of their specialization they are well sought after whereas pugilists are a dime a dozen. But their specialization is both their greatest strength and also their greatest limitation. Asking a master bowman to participate in a bare knuckle bout is like asking a veteran lawyer had done nothing but conveyancing matters to handle a full trial (why is it called full trial any way? Is there such a thing like half trial? Quarter trial?)  

Is there a way to have it both ways? Dual wield so to speak? Or to hit the sweet spot between competency and expertise? The area where general practice and specialized practice overlaps and some measure of financial stability is possible. Can it be done?

Maybe. Perhaps.

I don’t know. That is why I am writing this. I have not found the answer. Maybe I am too greedy in wanting to do everything that dispute related. Perhaps I need to talk to more old timers in the legal profession. See how they do it back in the day. The thing about people in general is that we don’t really change. Times and trends changes but we don’t. There will always be complaints over goods sold and delivered, families will always be have arguments sometimes, to the detriment of all (Re: First World War). There will always be disputes. There will always be legal problems. Some of them will go to court, some don’t. Either way, there will always be lawyers to be the peacemaker or as sower of discord. Because whether we like it or not, legal practice is a business. Has always been. With some strict ethical standards that some might choose to ignore but a business nonetheless. To sustain a business some measure of marketing is needed. Many ways to market a legal firm but the best way to do it is to do damn good job. Doing a good job speaks for itself. Never underestimate the power of word of mouth. Do a good job, people will talk. Do a half baked job, people will talk.

Specialization is another way to go about marketing your legal firm. Name an area of law and chances are there will be a household name in that area of practice. Easier to recall so and so firm that only specializes in beating off lawsuits from Tenaga Nasional Berhad or a so and so legal firm specializing in construction disputes than an all-rounder firm doing all sorts of things. In fact, a legal firm can list their specialization at the Malaysian Bar website to capitalize on their specialization. That would come in handy if your target market consists of laymen with legal problems. You would want to corner a market but in doing so, you are boxing yourself in. I speak of course of small to sole-proprietorship firms. This does not apply to Big Firms. Big Firms are like the Tesco of the legal practice. They cover most if not all practice areas with their teams of experts and they are everywhere. They have the resources to back them up and churn out paperwork like factories. They are as impersonal as the corporate clients they serve. They are not relevant to the discussion.  

I am talking about flesh and blood clients, real people, subjected to all the range of human emotions and fallacies including the tendency to have their preferences swayed by what was reported in the media and prevailing trends.

If your target market are fellow lawyers, then the approach ought to be different. A lawyer is expected to find files, work the files and ensure that you are paid on time for the work done. The finding of files part is strictly regulated by the Rules and are still largely a mystery to me. The remaining two are the two areas that a lawyer can find a gap to fill in. Working on a file, a litigation file requires someone to research the matter and draft the cause papers, someone to attend court hearings and/or trial, some one to attend to the client’s queries and generally handhold them through the whole process.

In small to sole-proprietorship firms, all these are attended by one lawyer. Most of a lawyer’s work are done in the background, away from the eyes of the client. This is where the support staffs come in for mid-sized to big law firms, the role might be invisible though important. For small to sole practitioner especially one just starting out, it’s a luxury. But, that is not to say that you cannot outsource the work piecemeal. Runners for document deliveries, MOB lawyers for court attendances, counsel work or just plain second chairing and so on. I have even come across a firm in the US doing nothing but churn out cause papers and doing legal research for fellow lawyers, which I think is useful. These are the kind of gaps that fellow lawyers can fill in or specialize in for small to sole-proprietorships practices.  

As to ensuring that lawyers are paid on time for the work done, that is a common problem and I have yet to hear of a common solution nor have I come up with a solution without having a law suit initiated to recover what was owed. Straight forward enough if it is individual client, impossible with a panel client. Perhaps a mechanism can be drafted where a lawyer's legal fees are guaranteed by a 3rd Party the way housing loans and business loans are guaranteed by SJPP and SJKP but what kind of a role a lawyer can play in this arrangement, none came to mind as of now.

Let us say that I am to specialize, in which area do I jump into? Industrial Court matters? Construction Law? Tortious matters? Commercial litigation? I am having too much fun doing all of it and with every case in these areas that I do the more I learn and the more I realized I needed to know. The more I realized this the more excited I become despite the fact that my practicing time is finite and knowing that I might end up as a Jack of all trades at the end of it.

But what is wrong with jacking it off anyway? I resent being boxed in. Being classified into a specific group. I have a growing number of (legal) fetishes, and my joy for them knows no bounds (ok, very wide boundaries).

Except it is not commercially viable they say. Just as cure-alls are derided as hoaxes, extremely wide practice areas inspire no confidence (they say). Impossible to cure it all just as it impossible to practice in a lot of areas without sacrificing your mastery over them. Is it now? Is that a statement of fact or a self-limiting belief passed down from one generation to another? If there can be polymaths a plenty in the age of quills and expensive papers then surely in this paperless, AI-driven, ZOOM-equipped age more than that is possible. It has to be.

It was said that civilization began when specialization or rather, division of labour became widespread. I say be damned to civilization! I don’t want to be a grass-combing peasant beholden to a Lord or Lady. I want to be that bon sauvage sucking on the fatty marrow of Life. I want to be that barbarian joyously battering down the gates of Knowledge and new areas of legal practice. If I can carry off both wisdom and plunder into the sunset then all the better for me.

I think that is enough rumination over specialization.

For now.