The Wide Open Field

Not too long ago, a friend called me up. He asked me the kind of question I once asked my Mentor about practicing. Like me, that friend of mine was of the same vintage in terms of years in practice. In brief he had joined a friend's firm as a Legal Assistant after being partner in another firm. 

Like me, he craved the stability of income which is of course something that is paramount once you have a family. Also like me, his chosen field is litigation. He had been out there doing his thing, having fun doing all sorts of cases and also like me he has problem coming back to a structured office existence. Exactly like me, he finds people passing by his room distracting as hell and finds it exasperating for a friend who is also the managing partner in his new firm to give instruction in a roundabout way as if wanting you to do something and yet not wanting to sound as to be bossing you around.  But the long and short of it, he wants to know if giving up his independent existence is a mistake. 

My first thought which of course I did not say out loud is: this sounds familiar. My follow up thought was: Darn it dude, I am not the Oracle of Delphi. But since he asked, I had to give it a go.

From what I know so far, a father and a husband has three chains that binds him, one being love, the second being responsibility and the last and final one being reality. All but reality are the ones a Man willingly binds himself upon. To discard love and responsibility in favour of a whim is to be in my eyes, a less of a Man.

At the same time, one cannot be living a lie by being someone who he is not, and this is where my Mentor's words rang true and I quote this from memory: Us litigators have been too long in the wild to be tamed. We have to do it our way or no way. To that I added: But if being tamed is what you have to do for the sake of your family then that is what you do.

Enkidu, the wild man of the Epic of Gilgamesh found his animal friends shying away from him for he stank of domestication and civilization but he did it nonetheless out of his love for Shamhat the temple priestess (we leave the argument whether a Woman is a civilizing aspect of a Man aside for the moment: Consider the Trojan War and Helen of Troy).

Is the proverbial domestication the logical conclusion after years of living free? I do not know. Maybe there is a middle way but I have not found it yet. To live free and yet not to worry about supporting one's family.  I can only tell myself that, that wide open field is always there, if not in this world, in the next and no, I did not mean that line and that wide open fields from The Gladiator. 

The ScoreBoard

 

Back when I was a pupil my master had the newspaper cuttings of his winning verdicts on one side of the wall of his office. At first I thought; Wow, so poyo! But then as I grew older, I realized there are two ways to look at it. One, it was a reminder of how much further he had to go. Two, balm to aching heart because winning a case or every case is not a guarantee.

That being said, I had the privilege of fighting losing battles, the nigh on impossible cases which the only soothing balm was that most of the time my fees was paid in full. Privilege, not because I have heroic delusions of myself but because I see myself firmly in the shoes (or rather soles of) Diogenes begging from a statue- wanting to get used to rejection or in my case, losing so that when I win, it is all sweeter and I won two weeks ago.

It was a legal aid file so the fees were not that substantial. In short, it was a drug possession case, and the investigation was shoddy and I did my level best to attack the investigation from every available angle (missing dashcam footage, missing bodycam footage, important witnesses not investigated and more). Thanks to the brave and very fair Magistrate, my client was acquitted at the end of the prosecution’s case. I can feel my stomach unclenching when she pronounced the verdict. I was on my way out of the court room to use the men’s room to deliver a cargo when the court came into session. So I sat back down.

The final blow I delivered was something the Investigating Officer himself shouted out to me outside the court during recess, twice: the drug belonged to someone else and he as the IO knew it from the beginning. Was it out of repressed guilt, was it misplaced ego believing that I would not dare to cross exam him on that point, I do not know. All I know is that he volunteered the crucial information that led to the acquittal of my client.

His shouted confession caught me by surprise so much so that I had to call my boss and my mentor for their guidance. When recess was over and the court was back in session I tried to gently persuade him to tell the court what he shouted out to me- he clammed up. That, was the cue for me to turn the screws on him and turn I did. In the end he relented. Admitted that another person had made a confession that the drug was his and despite this the IO kept the spotlight of investigation on my client and came up with a lame one liner that the arresting officer’s version of events are more convincing than the confession.

I was not accustomed to winning due to the aforementioned nature of mine being the magnet of lost causes, so when the time came to leave the court with my client already sobbing in relief, I felt lost. Lost despite the win because I do not know how to console a grown man crying. Crying tears of relief no less. Do I hand him my kerchief? Do I tell him to stop because its unmanly while his wife is looking or do I join him in tears of solidarity? I was also lost because I do not know how to process the win. My very first criminal trial win, ever.

In the end, I pat his back a bit, shook his hand, the hands of his family members and made an excuse to leave. I remembered walking back to my car feeling elated that my client is now free and able to move on with his life. The relief came much later when I took a massive dump at home.

If the case is ever reported in the law journals, I’d have to save it or print it out and keep it somewhere within reach but not as trophy to be displayed but as my personal scoreboard.

 

Band-ing the Law

A good friend of mine who was a KL court regular once told me a story of a friend of his who was also a legal practitioner whose name I had forgotten. Let us just call him John.

Now, John had a full trial on one particular morning at one of the high courts in KL Court Complex, and he was already in court and had everything ready. His cross exam questions, the bundles, the file itself and his stationeries and stacks of A4 printing papers which he used for writing on. No pads or laptops for him for old school was his school.

He was ready to rumble that morning except for the fact that he could not find his bands. That polyester thing you have wrapped around your neck when you have a matter in High Court. He had somehow lost the thing despite having turned his car upside down looking for it. Robed up but still not completely dressed for open court according to the dress code, all for want of a pair of bands.

The clock showed that it is 5 minutes to 9 am. No time for him to beg for, borrow or rent a pair of bands from anyone or anywhere before the Court is in session. The old adage that necessity is the mother of all inventions hold true that morning. He had the ingenuity and quickness of mind in the 5 minutes to remember that he had a stack of A4 papers with him and that the dress code only requires robe and bands (or bib) for open court matter in High Court. It was never specified what kind of band it should be. After a quick snip snap there with a pair of scissors and a bit of sellotape , Lo and Behold! A PAIR OF DISPOSABLE BANDS!

He had the peculiar pair of bands on throughout the trial that day, it was not known whether he carried the day. If the Yang Arif noticed that John’s bands looked out of the ordinary he was too well bred to say anything about it, after all suspicion is not proof. Same goes with John’s fellow practitioners in the courtroom and his opponent who saw the creation of the pair of bands. At all times one must keep in mind the legal maxim that what the law does not prohibit, it allows. Who is to challenge the authenticity of John’s pair of bands even if it is abnormally papery (arguably of natural fiber origin instead of the usual polyester) when the maker is present in court? It looks like a pair of bands ergo it is a pair of bands.

Upon the telling of the tale, we who sat around the table hooted and sniggered and chuckled and sipped on our Teh Tarik for we were at the court cafeteria, and it was the time between the old (criminal) cases are called at 9 am and new ones are called at around 10 or 11.30 am. Enough time for tea and a smoke. The table moved on to another juicy lawyerly gossip and I treated the story as one of those you hear but no one can confirm it really happen: fiction so to speak. However in time, it was for me to turn fiction into fact.

Years and years later I had a simple withdrawal of representation hearing at one of KL’s High Court by way of Zoom and I elected to attend it at my room in the office as I had cause papers to draft and legal opinions to issue afterwards. I had the hearing cause paper and my robes ready but for the life of me I cannot locate the darned bands. Just so happens that no one else in the office had their bands with them on that particular day. It wouldn’t be so bad if it happened at KL Court as you can rent a pair of bands from the Bar Room or buy a new one at the bookshop at B1. Sometimes I do feel like it is my lot in life for all these incidences to happen to me but bemoaning my Fate will not change anything. While I was cracking my brains, turning my car upside down in search of the missing bands, thinking where in the world can I find a spare pair of bands within 10 minutes, the story came back to me and I thought to myself:

Why not?  It is worth a try. I have at least 10 minutes before the hearing and we do have boxes of A4 paper for the printer/photocopier and I do have a pair of scissors, somewhere.

So there I was, attending a hearing with a pair of paper bands of my own fashioning, all the while trying to remain stock still to make sure that the damned thing won’t look too suspiciously handmade on video. I even switched off the AC to avoid any unwanted fluttering. If the judge noticed it, he said nothing about it. The hearing concluded and I taped the paper bands to my wall as a reminder that sometimes things can go wrong and we must make do with what we have and that sometimes, a pair of paper bands are better than no bands at all.

Ever since then I have always made sure my bands are where I knew they would be within reach and I keep a spare ream of A4 paper handy. Just in case.

 

Note:

Bar Council Circular No 004/2012 states that the Male Attire among others should consist of:

Kemeja Lengan panjang warna putih dengan wing collar warna putih dan bib.

(Shirt) White long sleeves with white wing collar and bib.

 

A Cross to Bear

2024 while eventful for had been a dry year for me in terms of trials. So, when the opportunity presented itself for me to join a trial sometime in November, I went.

It was a criminal matter at Magistrate’s court level, and I had immense fun. Both me and the lead counsel did but most importantly it sparked a discussion between me and the lead counsel on cross examination process itself. This was of course after the day was done, after dinner and on the drive back to the City.

Intro

In a trial, the purpose of cross examination is to attack your opponent’s case until their position and evidence is rendered hollow, meaningless and not to be relied on by the judge and in doing so, tilt the scales of justice in your client’s favour. Now, here is a more experienced take on cross-examination (dude even wrote a book on Advocacy which I strongly recommend). Owing to my still on-going studies in the art of cross examination, I will not dwell on the techno-legal (definitely not fengtau) side of Cross-Examination but for now I think it is sufficient to remember the important rule that you must put your case to the opposing witness. Failure to do so would mean that you have agreed with their evidence. There are many local cases on this but being a poyo kind of guy and because it is easier for me to remember because it is orang putih name, just refer to the case of Browne v Dunn [1893] 6 R 67. Also, bear in mind the difference between putting and suggesting something to a witness. There is an article in MLJ about this by a prominent judge if I was not mistaken. Can’t remember the name of the judge.

As how to put your case to the witness, so far, I find that it is a blend of style and understanding of human nature. I think the old fable on Wind and Sun having a wager on who can get a guy’s jacket off is of application here. The Wind blew and blew. First a gust, later in a great gale and the guy just wrapped his jacket closer against the cold. The Sun did nothing but shine until the warmth had the guy took off his jacket as a matter of course.  The point is, there is a difference between forcing and leading a witness to where you want them to be on their own volition.

Of course, one should not be all nice and cozy with an opposing witness throughout the cross-examination. In the words of my teacher and mentor, you are not there to make friends with a witness but, I might add you still can be friendly with a witness and hand him the noose.

 

Conversational Style vs Confrontational Style

Most lawyers either adopt the hammer to submission style or conversational style. The best combines both.

Conversational style is about putting the witness at ease. Speak to them like you would speak to a friend, minimize or eliminate the legalese whenever possible. We lawyers tend to fall into legalese because of the false assumption that legalese makes us more authoritative to a witness (especially laymen witnesses) when all it does is confuse them. They are already ill at ease with being on the witness stand where the attention is all on them with lawyers asking all these questions. Get them to overcome their nervousness of appearing in court, their distrust for lawyers. Courtesy costs nothing and will open doors. When done perfectly, the witness themselves will ask for the shovel by which they will dig themselves a hole they cannot get out from.

For some reason, the hammer approach is the mostly associated with criminal lawyers at least that is the case in my observation. The approach combines intimidation with aggressiveness both in language and tone of voice to make the witness yield and submit to the cross examiner’s assertions. I am not a fan of this approach and I don’t think most judges appreciate it either. There is already tension in the air, no need to add further tension to the proceeding. Most importantly, if it goes on and on, it tends to be annoying.  But there are many ways to skin a cat. If this works for you, go for it.

 

Yes-No Questions

I was guilty of this for quite some time until it read that Chapter X of the Evidence Act 1950 did not provide the cross examiner any means to directly control what kind of answer a witness should give to any question put to them. This runs contrary to the prevalent practice in court where the yes or no questions is the go-to form of cross examination. I have seen seniors do it, I have seen DPPs do it. But just because (almost) everyone does it does not mean you should or most importantly, it does not mean it is right.  

The best of all, is when the cross examiner before even beginning his cross-examination cautions the witness to only answer yes or no to all questions posed to him or her. I was guilty of this before. Nowadays, whenever I hear this, I see it as an opportunity to rattle the cross-examiner. An objection to this direction will disrupt the flow and the train of thought of the cross-examiner because the yes or no approach invariably boils down to total reliance on scripted cross-examination questions where there is a planned sequence of questions where the expected answer is either yes or no and no explanation or elaboration by the witness is allowed (The standard line goes: Kalau ada penerangan nanti peguam awak akan mintak penerangan lepas ni). Now, when your opponent objects to this line of questioning, it would force you to reorganize your questions on the fly and control the witness at the same time. Some practitioner can manage it, some could not. Cheap shot? Definitely. Legal? Perfectly. Most important of all it saves the court’s time and yours from a lengthy Re-Examination.

I understand why some practitioners feel the need to totally rely on yes or no questions. It provides them with predictability and predictability means safety. Yes or No questions it is a set of training wheels for a newbie. But you can’t be using training wheels your whole practicing life can you? Can’t be doing wheelie and weikang with them training wheels on.

I would not say there is no place for Yes or No question in a cross examination. There is. Its proper place should be as the penultimate question to a particular factual or legal point you are trying to make. The final fence post surrounding the witness and the question should be drafted as such that the answer can only be yes or no without having the cross examiner to direct the witness to answer yes or no. Most importantly, if done right, it does not even matter whether the witness answers yes or no as both answers will equally destroy his credibility and/or evidence and/or made your point.

Abandoning the total yes or no approach also presents another set of challenges because with answers and explanations given by witness will sometimes veer towards unrelated matter not raised in your original question. This is when you need to control to witness, remind them to stay on point, interrupt them if you have too because if the witness is allowed to talk on and on it will piss off the judge because you are not in control of the witness and wasting the court’s time. But sometimes the longer the answer/explanation, the more rope you have to hang them with. Therein lies the challenge; between controlling the witness and having more opportunities to destroy your opponent’s case. It takes a lot of practice to balance between the two but you will get there eventually.

 

I put to you, I suggest to you

These two used to be my favourite way to drive home that final fence post for a particular issue in a cross examination. Putting your case to the witness.  Again as mentioned before there is a difference between putting and suggesting to a witness. One is when you have the evidence to back it up. The other is when you only have a plausible theory. Kindly look for that MLJ article. I still can’t remember the name of the judge. 

Anyway, like I said, I used to utilize the two above questions as a concluding question to a particular issue. One, it makes it easier for me to identify later in the Notes of Proceedings when the line of questioning for a topic has ended and to signal to the judge that I am done with that particular topic. However, as it was pointed out to me by my mentor the wording I put to you or I suggest to you is called signposting. It can signal to the witness to answer no to the particular question. Especially  if  the preceding questions are sloppily drafted and asked. Nowadays, I tend to drop the signposting questions in favour of a more natural language approach hence my preference to  a more conversational style of cross-examination. Either way, whether it is put or suggest it is imperative to make your case known to the witness during cross examination.

Have a cross-exam questions list (‘’the script’’) but be prepared to ditch it

The are many ways to prepare for cross-examination. I was told there are those who can do it on the fly (mad respect bro!), there are those who wrote down expected answers instead of the questions and work their way backwards. There are also those who instead of answers or questions wrote down the issues or ingredients of the claim/ defence they want to cover during cross examination.

As for me, it is not possible for me to remember every single thing so it is only natural for me to write down the cross exam questions or the script supported with list of documents with the page number to be referred to as a way to prepare for cross-examination. However, be prepared to go off script. Because things almost always never go according to plan. Maybe, a witness can be a stubborn one which bears repeating some questions or maybe you hit upon a simpler way to get the answers that you want mid stream or maybe a witness could give you a long, damning answer (damning to your opponent) in support of your case from your simple question (what luck!). The more you do it the easier it become for you to develop that agility in cross-examining. In short, have a script but learn not to be stuck to it rigidly.

Not to overcook the steak

The more you practice the easier it will get for you know what kind of answer you want to get out of a witness in a cross-examination. I had never experienced the old days where Witness Statements are not yet in vogue. All that I know is that Witness Statements made it easier for you to know why a particular witness is called to give evidence. Wily lawyers will try to catch you with a little surprise by way of additional questions during EIC. But most of the time, you will know what to get from a witness during cross-examination by referring to the Witness Statement, that is if you get them on time before trial.

The moment you get what you want whether it is to prove or disprove the elements of the civil wrong or to extract an agreement from a witness for particular factual point in their knowledge, sit down. Try not to overdo it. Remember that an overcooked steak is dry and flavourless. You do not want your case to be remembered as such. Let it be juicy and done just right. 

 

Outro

Cross examination while a evidential and trial procedure, it is at the heart of it deeply personal thing. The above is what works for me. May be it will work for you, maybe it will not. Maybe you deeply enjoy it like I do, maybe you don't.

For me cross-examination is the best part of a trial next to submissions. In cross-examination you can see the full range of human experience and character. The outright lies, the tears, the anger, the witty repartee, the smart witness leaving the lawyer stumped. All sorts of things. I am but a poor vessel to convey the whole experience. It must be experienced personally. For me it is fun if done right and if it achieves its purpose. Done badly it becomes another cross to bear for a judge, along with all bad advocacy he or she went through that week and does not bode well to your case.

 

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.  

 

 

The Paratrooper's Prayer

Aku tak berapa pandai untuk menilai dan menikmati puisi. Ada cuba tapi mungkin aku belum cukup cultured lagi. Mungkin perlu mendalami lagi kerja-kerja pemuisi dahulu kala. 

Dalam Call Sign Chaos, Jim Mattis ada merujuk kepada The Paratrooper's Prayer. Ini yang seronok baca buku bukan fiksyen, bibiliografi yang memberikan kau lagi banyak buku dan bahan lain untuk kau baca. The Paratrooper's Prayer ini ditulis oleh Andre Zirnheld iaitu seorang profesor falsafah dan kemudiannya anggota pasukan payung terjun bersama Free French Air Force sewaktu Perang Dunia Kedua. Beliau meninggal dunia selepas menyertai serangan SAS (Special Air Service) ke atas lapangan terbang tentera Jerman di Sidi Haneish di mana SAS dengan menggunapakai 18 buah jip bermesingan menjahanamkan 37 pesawat tentera Jerman pada waktu itu.

Sekali aku baca The Paratrooper's Prayer terus aku minat. The Paratrooper's Prayer ini bagi aku menarik kerana ianya satu bentuk doa atau juga boleh jadi satu puisi yang menyuntik semangat. Ikut kau nak pilih yang mana. Yang penting, ianya bagi aku satu doa/puisi yang lain daripada lain kerana nadanya yang sangat merendah diri dan berserah tapi pada masa yang sama, defiant. Itu membuatkannya ianya relatable, terutamanya kepada pengamal undang-undang yang mengamal di dalam firma sendiri yang bagi aku, berani dan cekal. Semoga kalian kekal berani dan cekal. Semoga kalian dapat mendaratkan kes sebesar paus lagenda dalam hayat kalian.

Semoga kalian kekal defiant. 

 

La Prière du Para

Je m'adresse à vous, mon Dieu, car vous donnez

Ce qu'on ne peut obtenir que de soi

Donnez-moi, mon Dieu, ce qui vous reste

Donnez-moi ce qu'on ne vous demande jamais.

 

Je ne vous demande pas le repos

Ni la tranquillité

Ni celle de l'âme, ni celle du corps.

Je ne vous demande pas la richesse

Ni le succès, ni même la santé.

 

Tout ça, mon Dieu, on vous le demande tellement

Que vous ne devez plus en avoir.

Donnez-moi, mon Dieu, ce qui vous reste

Donnez-moi ce que l'on vous refuse.

 

Je veux l'insécurité et l'inquiétude.

Je veux la tourmente et la bagarre

Et que vous me les donniez, mon Dieu, définitivement.

Que je sois sûr de les avoir toujours

Car je n'aurai pas toujours le courage

De vous les demander.

 

Donnez-moi, mon Dieu, ce qui vous reste.

Donnez-moi ce dont les autres ne veulent pas.

Mais donnez-moi aussi le courage

Et la force et la foi.

Car vous seul donnez, mon Dieu,

Ce que l'on ne peut attendre que de soi.

 

 

Prayer of the Paratrooper

Give me, O Lord, what remains Thine;

What no one ever asks of Thee.

I do not ask Thee for rest

Nor tranquility,

Neither of the soul nor of the body.

I do not ask Thee for riches,

Nor success,

Nor even health.

So many ask you for these, O Lord,

Thou shouldst no longer have anything left to give.

Give me Lord, what remains Thine.

Give me that which all of us refuse.

I want insecurity and restlessness,

I want struggle and trouble.

And grant them to me, My Lord, forever.

Make sure that I will always take them

Because I will not always have the courage

To ask of Thee for them.

Give me, O Lord, what remains Thine,

Give me what others do not want;

But give me also the Courage,

And the Strength,

And the Faith.

Amen.