Dignity

Once while waiting for my case management at Industrial Court (this was before E-Mention came in), I struck up a conversation with my opponent. He was a veteran in the Industrial Court circuit. He told me of a story about his former client who was dismissed from his senior managerial position for some reason. He engaged the veteran lawyer to fight on his behalf in the Industrial Court. All the while he kept the appearances of still being gainfully employed. Not a word he said to his wife on the matter. He would wake up every morning, put on his work attire, ate his breakfast, kissed his wife goodbye and drove off to work like he always did. Only now he drove to the nearest coffee shop or to the veteran’s law office to wait for latest update on his case.

Then when office hours are over, he would go back home, seemingly tired from the labours of the day. He managed to keep this up until his savings ran out upon which he asked the Veteran if the court matter is going take any longer. The veteran told the client; most likely (Industrial Matter like most contested matters, tend to take time unless parties reach settlement).

Later, the client’s wife informed the Veteran that the client had died. It was not known whether he ended his life or he died of broken heart. He could not bring himself to tell his wife that he had been unemployed the past few months. The Veteran ended the story with an emphasis on the dignity of employment and how the lack of it can break a Man. Well, most men anyway.

For a Man, his dignity is tied to three things. Can he start a family? Can he provide for the family and lastly can he protect the family. While the three are interrelated to one another, the first and the third is not the subject of this writing. The second one is.

We are long past the caveman period where the patriarch would be one who brought home the mammoth (or whatever the bush meat was then) but the idea remains the same, more or less throughout the ages. It is the Man’s job to be the provider for the family. Now, we live in a vulgar age. The age of naked greed and never-ending rush. The modern age. No longer it is viable for only the Man of the house to be the sole provider. The financial needs nowadays require for both Man and Woman to be employed, to make ends meet. To pay the bills. If your spouse is not working, then you are lucky. Precarious but lucky that the children would have the undivided love and attention from at least one of the parent. Precarious because, assuming the non-working parent is the wife, should anything happen to the father, then the wife, mother and children would be left without a breadwinner. The prudent thing is to have the wife/mother to be both at home and engaged in some sort of employment, in case if anything happens to the husband.

Being the provider is both a responsibility and source of pride. How a Man does that varies. So long as bellies are full, the lights are on and it came not the proceeds from a syubhah or outright haram sources, and the work was done diligently, I do not see why it matters the kind of work the Man does.

I cannot remember how the Latin went or who said it but was it not said that:

Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble.

I heard something similar in a Friday sermon some years ago in Ara Damansara. Usually Friday sermons are just variations of the same old things either preaching rewards and punishments of the Hereafter. But not that Friday. I remembered that nobody snoozed (as was the usual case) or the ones who were in the process of doing so sat up (myself included) because what we heard that day what not the ordinary JAIS approved standard text. I know this because no standard text would have references to Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Effective People.

The Khatib spoke not about articles of faith or the afterlife. Nor did he preach Hellfire and damnation to sinners and transgressors. He spoke of the earthly struggles of Men. About doing our best in whatever that is we do. He spoke about the dignity of labour. I think that made it relatable to the Men in attendance that Friday.

‘’Tak kira apa kerja Tuan-tuan, Kalau pemandu teksi, jadi pemandu teksi yang terbaik. Kalau pegawai bank, jadilah pegawai bank yang paling cemerlang. Kerana berbuat yang paling terbaik dalam pekerjaan itu adalah ibadah’’, I remembered that was how the Khatib ended his sermon. It was one of the best Friday sermon I have heard so far.

These days a Man’s dignity is tied to more than one job. Maybe one is a calling, the other a thing to keep the lights on and that is acceptable. But not for our profession. The Legal Profession. Ours is a noble profession. Noble, but out of touch I think.

In the parent act, Legal Profession Act 1976, the word dignity was not mentioned at all. In Legal Profession Act (Practice and Etiquette Rules) 1978, the word dignity only appeared twice, in Rule 16 and Rule 31. Whereas in the latest version of in the Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council, the word dignity was mentioned at least 16 times, even in mundane matters such as the colour one would use in the letterhead. It seems that when left to our own devices, we went to town but when it matters the most, we missed the mark entirely.

 

Gainfully Employed

Law school taught us all the ideals of legal practice.We take it as a given that once called to the Bar, the way to the top, whatever that is, stability, fame, riches and whatnot is within easy grasp. That would one of the first myths that would be busted within few weeks or not years of practicing. Even the Legal Profession Act assumes that all would be fine and dandy once you are worthy of having a practicing certificate.

Section 30 (1)(c) Legal Profession Act 1976 sets out simply that a lawyer ought not to be doing anything other than actual lawyering, or in its own wording:

 

‘’30 Disqualification for practising certificate

(1) No advocate and solicitor shall apply for a practising certificate -

…..

 

(c) if he is gainfully employed by any other person, firm or body in a capacity other than as an advocate and solicitor.’’

 

There are few reported cases on Section 30 Legal Profession Act 1976. Only two that is relevant to lawyers who wanted to do something else on the side. One in particular- a Court of Appeal decision which involves an accountant wanting to both practice as an accountant and lawyer (See: Syed Mubarak Syed Ahmad v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia [2000] 3 CLJ 659).

In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s adoption of a very loose definition of the term gainfully employed albeit derived from the Oxford Concise Dictionary that is to say; so long as you provide a service and you receive payment for it, you are gainfully employed. The Court of Appeal declined to apply literal construction of Section 30, instead it opted for purposive construction of the said section as was adopted by High Court (See: Page 661 to 665 of the case)

The other case was a High Court decision over the issuance of practicing certificate to a suspended Policeman practicing as an advocate and solicitor (See: Chee Kuat Lin v. Majlis Peguam [2013] 1 CLJ 359). This case followed the Court of Appeal decision in Syed Mubarak. The point of similarity between Syed Mubarak and Chee Kuat Lin would be that in both cases the appellants already had a steady employment. One was an accountant, and the other was a suspended policeman on half-pay. Both wanted the best of both worlds, both for obvious reasons, failed in their attempt.

Going back to Syed Mubarak Syed Ahmad, I respectfully disagree with how the term gainfully employed is defined. Too simplistic it was in its approach. If one were to refer to a dictionary, then which dictionary would prevail over the rest? Case in point, here is a definition of gainfully employed according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

 

‘’gainfully employed idiom

: provided with a job that pays wages or salary

Example: She hasn't been gainfully employed for a few years.’’

 

Perhaps one would take issue with my reference to an American dictionary, but the fact remains, the Americans seems to take gainful employment to mean a steady job as I do. Steady job = steady pay. That would only be logical.

Now, if one were to have a steady job with unsteady pay would not he or she then fall out of the gainfully employed category? What about if a practitioner is to engage in a spot of casual labour? No sir, my beef is not with the court. It is with the term gainfully employed. It was not clearly defined anywhere.

I looked for statutory definition of the term gainfully employed but found none. The best I can find was at Section 2 of the Employment Act 1955 for the definition of employer and employee. There was no definition of employment.

"employer" means any person who has entered into a contract of service to employ any other person as an employee and includes the agent, manager or factor of such first mentioned person, and the word "employ", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly;

and

"employee" means any person or class of persons-

(a) included in any category in the First Schedule to the extent specified therein; or

(b) in respect of whom the Minister makes an order under subsection (3) or section 2A;’’

 

The First Schedule of the Employment Act 1955, like the above definition of employers and employees revolves around the existence of contract of services and wages. These two taken together would mean that the idea of employment would suggest a substantial degree of formality; it would have a contract of service and there would be wages. In short, there is regularity of payment and formality of contract. As such, it would be clear by now that the definition of gainful employment preferred by the Court of Appeal in Syed Mubarak Syed Ahmad was a not a precise definition.

However, to be fair to the Court of Appeal, the decision in Syed Mubarak Syed Ahmad dates back when gig economy was but a daydream, laptops were thick enough to stop bullets (Work from home? What manner of heresy is that?) and broadband internet was unheard of. Amazing developments have taken place since then. Considering all that, the time has come for the definition of gainfully employed in Section 30 LPA to be revisited to clarify its position with the current realities. These are not the days when single income from a single earner can build and sustain a family. This is a vulgar age. These are time where too many rats are racing towards the same, much diminished, mouldy cheese.

 

Dignity and Unsuitability

Section 30 of LPA 1976 is not the only legal provision that concerns lawyers doing things on the side. Rule 44 of the LPA (Practice & Etiquette Rules) 1978 provides that:

 

‘’Rule 44. Advocate and solicitor not to actively carry on any trade.

(a) An advocate and solicitor shall not actively carry on any trade which is declared by the Bar Council from time to time as unsuitable for an advocate and solicitor to engage in or be an active partner or a salaried officer in connection therewith.

(b) An advocate and solicitor shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, firm (other than advocate and solicitor or firm of advocates and solicitors) or corporation so long as he continues to practise and shall on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council and take steps to cease to practise as an advocate and solicitor so long as he continues in such employment.’’

 

Further, the Bar Council in its capacity under Section 77 of the LPA came out with Rule 12 under the Rules and Rulings of Bar Council which states as follows:

 

12.01   Engagement in other business or trade

             (1) An Advocate and Solicitor who is a sole proprietor or a partner of a law firm may engage on a part-time basis in a business or trade that is in the opinion of the Bar Council not incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession.

(2) An Advocate and Solicitor who is a legal assistant may engage on a part- time basis in a business or trade that is in the opinion of the Bar Council not incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession, provided that it does not infringe his/her full-time employment by an Advocate and Solicitor or a firm of Advocates and Solicitors in accordance with section 30(1)(b) of the Act

From the two above provisions, it is clear that Sec 30 (1)(c) LPA is somewhat diluted in its application. What is clear from the two above is that legal practitioners can have a part time business or trade. The only yardstick is whether the said business or trade is an affront to the dignity of the profession and whether it is suitable for a lawyer.

Problem now is that I have yet to find any opinion or declaration by the Bar Council saying so and so trade or business is not suitable or incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Please point them out to me. I’d love to see that opinion or declaration. If there is none, then what does it take for an opinion or a declaration to be made by the Bar Council? For now it is safe to say that there is no clarity on the matter when the Bar Council is in the position to make things clear. Whether that lack of clarity is intended or not, it is not known.

Who decides what is and what is not an affront to the dignity of the profession? Even a brief poorly litigated or a commercial agreement shoddily drafted can be an insult to the dignity of the profession. Who can rightly decide what is suitable for a practitioner? The provisions that I have referred to above suggests that Bar Council has that power.  But, if it refuses or are unable to do so for whatever reason then I say let that power be delegated to the Members in the style and name of a committee.

Last time I checked there is no limit to the size of a committee under the LPA 1976 save that the total members of the said committee must at least comprise of 2/3 of Council Members. That should not be a problem since there is no set limit for elected members of the Council (See: Section 50 to 58 of LPA 1976). Let the committee then put the matter to the members at large for their consideration. But the important characteristic of the committee is that it must as realistically possible be comprised from Members that came from small to sole proprietorship firms; the ones first to feel the pangs of hunger and ones first to know the misery of unpaid bills.  

For all the trappings of equality of the Bar, not all lawyers are created equal. Sure, we all struggle as practitioners, but the magnitude of the struggle differs from one lawyer to another. A dry month for one practitioner can be a drought for another. If asked every lawyer wants to land that Whale of a case, every lawyer dreams of stability. Nobody wants to be doing something else other than lawyering (unless lawyering is your part time gig). Not every practitioner came from a big sized firm. Not every lawyer starts their practice with a car. But for some that is their reality. Life is hard. They can bitch and moan on how difficult to secure a brief, or they can do the sensible thing, having something else on the side while still hunting for the brief. Moonlighting. That is what some are doing. Some as lecturers, some sell insurances, some sell frozen food products, or acted as process server. Who is to say that all these are incompatible with the dignity of the profession when one of the most dignified thing a Man (or a woman) can do for his/her family is to provide for them.

It is because of this I say the best person or persons to decide what is dignified or suitable trade or business would be the members of the Bar themselves as a collective. The ideals of the Bar cannot exist in vacuum, nor can it be imposed without taking note with the facts on the ground, without taking into consideration what the Members went through because underneath that suit or bands or robe of its members there is a Man (or Woman) quietly wrestling with what Fate has dealt them.

Once I toyed with the idea of Universal Basic Income for lawyers but come to think of it, it smacks of charity or pity. Neither of which is palatable nor compatible with the dignity of the profession. Now, I say it is more dignified to allow the members of the Bar to earn other than practicing the Law, not all the time perhaps but part of the time. To keep the lights on or their families fed. It goes against the deeply ingrained idea that lawyers ought to earn by way of legal practice, but the reality (for some) seems to suggest otherwise. Just because we don’t live such reality does not give us the right to say it does not exist. Who are we to deny that reality?

Of course, a balance must be struck. A clear list must be drawn as what is prohibited and what is allowed and to be constantly updated but for God’s sake make the list easily available-lah for the members. The Bar is not a secret society, nor should it operate like one. It is not dignified of us to spout platitudes on fairness, equality and all that only let our members do things on the side in a hush-hush for want of clarity on part of the Bar.

If the Bar Council cannot or will not help the members of the Bar then at least make it clear how the Members can help themselves.

Ter-sebut

Sebelum ada sistem E-Review, semua pengurusan kes dijalankan secara fizikal tak kira kes jenayah atau kes sivil. Jadi mahkamah-mahkamah termasuklah Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan jauh lebih riuh daripada sekarang ini dengan peguam-peguam ke sana ke mari, duduk menunggu diluar kamar pengurusan kes atau bilik Mahkamah. Ada yang tunggu berjam hanya untuk menghadiri pengurusan kes tak sampai 5 minit. Kalau mahkamah dalam negeri dan dalam mukim kau tak apa lagi. Yang jadi masalah bila kes kau di luar mukim kau beramal sebagai contoh, kau beramal di luar Lembah Klang dan kau ada pengurusan di Istana Kehakiman. Memandu atau naik kapal terbang semata-mata untuk beritahu penolong pendaftar yang kau dah failkan segala dokumen pra-perbicaraan adalah tidak berbaloi. Sangat tidak berbaloi dari segi kos dan masa kau cari tiket kapal terbang atau memandu berjam-jam.

Satu amalan yang diterimapakai dikalangan peguam dan sistem perundangan adalah bila ada kes di luar kawasan untuk minta peguam dalam mukim untuk hadir ke mahkamah bagi pihaknya. Amalan ini disebut sebagai Menyebut Bagi Pihak atau dalam Bahasa Inggerisnya, Mention on Behalf (MOB). Fahri ada tulis dengan panjang lebar berkenaan sejarah amalan MOB ini dalam buku beliau, The Malaysian Guide to Advocacy (Ya, ini adalah iklan). Di Annexure 2 tak silap aku.

Kalau ikut cerita old timer, MOB ini dahulu satu servis tak berbayar, satu bentuk mutual aid dikalangan pengamal. Bila aku mula beramal yang aku tahu MOB ini berbayar melainkan kau buat bagi lawan kau dalam kes atau untuk kawan-kawan rapat. Aku cuma tahu MOB itu berbayar kerana MOB itu punca pendapatan utama aku. Kadar bayaran itu pun mula-mula aku main letak aja. Congak kos minyak, tol dan penat. Bila kau freshly called to the Bar, tak ada nama, tak ada kes tapi ada tanggungan. MOB la jawab nya. Jadi bahan belasahan untuk warga Kehakiman umpama Kevin Costner menahan peluru untuk Whitney Houston.

Aku ingat lagi bila pertama kali MOB di Istana Kehakiman. Waktu itu aku tak tahu berapa rate untuk hadir ke Istana Kehakiman jadi aku caj lebih kurang RM 150.00 (Istana Kehakiman kot!), seingat aku lah. Instructing lawyer (yang mewakili Perayu) punya instruction pula hanyalah emel pendek yang berbunyi: Please obtain a new appeal date. Aku pun okay kan sahaja dalam hati. Duit punya pasal, tak pikir panjang. Lagipun itu bukan kali pertama terima instruction one-line sebegitu dari instructing lawyer dan seterusnya lunyai dihambur Hakim atau Majistret. Tapi itu kali pertama dalam instruction sebegitu bagi kes di Istana Kehakiman. Tapi masih juga aku minta kertas kausa dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan di emel kepada aku, just in case.

Pada waktu itu, kali terakhir aku ke dalam salah satu bilik Mahkamah di Istana Kehakiman adalah pada waktu lawatan sambil belajar waktu sebelum betul-betul buat Degree. Aku datang nak tengok hujahan berbalas hujahan, the bloodsport where the both opponents would pummel each other (verbally) until the judge would signal for the parties would disengage and a ruling made whereupon the Victor would howl in triumph (dalam hati). Tapi takde, cuma ada sesi taklimat dari pegawai Istana Kehakiman. Potong stim betul.

Pagi hari jadi itu aku memang datang paling awal ke Istana Kehakiman, sarapan pun tak. Resah pun ya, teruja pun ya. Tapi mostly rasa nak pitam. Baru pagi itu realiti sebenar apa yang aku bakal buat sampai ke otak aku. Aku datang dengan bersedia untuk kena tibai di Mahkamah Terbuka tapi bila fikir balik, pagi itu aku akan kena tibai dengan 3 hakim. Waktu itu segala benda dalam badan yang boleh dirembes, diteran keluar dari badan terasa nak keluar. Panik sekejap. Sebelum masuk ke bilik Mahkamah, aku telefon semula instructing solicitor minta butiran penting rayuan. Dia akhirnya bagi butiran kes (aku dah minta lama dah) tapi memang tak cukup untuk aku bawa rayuan kalau perlu.

Bawa rayuan. Kecut perut aku bila fikirkan. Apa la aku tau tentang bawa rayuan di Istana Kehakiman. Aku cuba call mana-mana peguam senior yang aku kenal untuk mintak last minute pointer nak kendalikan soalan-soalan hakim peringkat Rayuan sebegini. Clutching at straws lah pendek kata. Yang jawab panggilan telefon cuma seorang dan itupun dia cakap dia tak pernah sampai Mahkamah Rayuan jadi memang tak tahu apa langsung. Dari resah jadi redha. Sarung jubah dan buka pintu bilik Mahkamah.

Bila masuk ke bilik Mahkamah terus aku ternampak para peguam beratur depan satu komputer sebelah meja Polis Mahkamah. Ramai peguam berkeliaran, berbual. Boleh nampak di situ ada dua jenis peguam. Yang sibuk menelaah bundle masing-masing kebanyakkannya yang muda-muda. Yang lebih senior sibuk berbual dengan rakan-rakan yang sama usia. Pegi jumpa Pendaftar dulu (masa tu aku ingat dia Jurubahasa) bagi nombor rayuan. Dia bagi sekeping kertas ada nama Hakim-hakim yang menjadi panel pagi itu dan suruh aku daftar kehadiran sambil tunjuk kepada komputer yang ada ramai peguam beratur didepannya.

Selesai daftar nama aku duduk di tempat paling dekat dengan pintu, paling belakang sekali. Kalau kelaut MOBnya nak lari senang. Gitulah agaknya mind bawah sedar aku berfikir. Nasib baik kes-kes lain dipanggil dulu. Seingat aku kes aku pada pagi itu adalah kes ke empat dalam senarai. Rupanya pagi itu rayuan yang ada permintaan untuk adjourn akan di dengar terlebih dahulu. Aku perhatikan satu persatu kes yang dibawa, lenggok bahasa dan cara peguam pujuk panel, ambik nota sambil menunggu. Kes-kes yang berjalan semua ada alasan kukuh untuk adjournment tapi bukan kes aku. Aku tak ingat apa alasan yang instructing solicitor bagi. Yang aku betul-betul ingat alasan dia merapu.

Bila nombor kes dipanggil dan aku bingkas berdiri. Aku tak tahu kalau kau pernah main game CRPG point and click berjudul Diablo dalam game tersebut ada satu boss level nama dia The Butcher. Bila kau masuk ke dalam sarang dia yang penuh dengan bangkai dan mayat mereka yang disembelih, kata-kata sambutan dia pada kau adalah: Ahh! Fresh Meat!. Itu yang aku boleh nampak dari riak wajah panel pada waktu itu. Semua senyum sinis tengok aku.

Aku ingat Yang Arif Hakim yang chair adalah lelaki, Melayu, bercermin mata, aku lupa nama dia dan ahli panel lain. Perkenal diri seperti biasa kemudian maklumkan pada mahkamah bahawa perayu pohon adjournment untuk rayuan. Saat itu hilang segala gemuruh dan takut. Tau tau je aku sedang berada dalam Zen state. Zen state bagi aku adalah titik tengah di antara mengantuk dan sedar, di antara gugup teruk dan terlebih yakin. Perasaan kau semuanya diketepikan, disimpan dalam peti. Bila aku dalam Zen state semua benda yang tak ada penting akan dimute, ditolak ketepi, dan tutur kata aku akan keluar sebutir-sebutir tanpa gagap atau mumbling. Yang ada cuma aku dan perkara yang aku nak kerjakan itu. Banyak kali cuba untuk replicate kembali keadaan untuk buat aku masuk kembali dalam Zen state tapi tak selalu berjaya. Satu yang aku perasan adalah aku masuk dalam Zen state lebih mudah bila aku dapat tidur yang cukup dan tak makan apa-apa pada hari bicara/pendengaran dan bila aku ada Chronology of Case ditangan. Tanya lah apa pun, semua aku boleh jawab.

Aku tak ingat sepenuhnya apa panel tanya pada aku. Yang aku ingat panel tak bertanya alasan untuk adjournment. Sekali pun tak. Aku rasa panel memang dah tau kenapa tapi saja nak bergurau kasar dengan aku. Fresh meat kan. Panel dok tanya pasal fakta kes pada aku. Tanya mana Responden (respondent tak datang, aku tak ingat kenapa). Aku jawab setakat mana yang instructing lawyer beritahu aku sambil cakap dengan cara paling hormat bahawa aku bukan orang sesuai untuk jawab semua soalan. But you are here aren’t you? When you appear in court you are the counsel for the case for the day, you are deemed to know all there is to know about the case, kata chair pada aku. Setepek aku kena. Aku angguk setuju sebelum tunjuk dekat dia email sekeping yang aku ada. Yang Arif, I really wish I could help Yang Arif but unfortunately this is the only document that was provided to me by the instructing solicitor despite my requests for more documents (memang betul pun. Aku telefon dan emel pejabat dia banyak kali tapi staff dia layan tak layan je. Bila pagi hari MOB baru betul-betul dia bagi aku brief important facts). Panel tak pedulik, berganti-ganti tanya aku pasal fakta kes sampai last sekali bila chair tanya aku berkenaan satu fakta kes yang aku tak sure, aku balas: Yang Arif, I fear I am ill equipped to tackle Yang Arif’s insightful questions. I humbly seek an adjournment for the matter so that the Appellant’s counsel could better tackle your questions. Chair bagi aku senyuman sinis terakhir pastu suruh Pendaftar bagi tarikh baru. Dapat tarikh baru, ucap terima kasih dan terus duduk. Panel terus mengalih perhatian kepada mangsa seterusnya.

Aku tak sedar bila aku keluar dari Zen state. Yang aku tau aku rasa penat sepenat-penatnya. Lunyai beb. Bila aku keluar dari bilik Mahkamah dan call pejabat instructing lawyer pun dari plan nak marah dia pun kesudahannya aku cakap lembut tapi, aku tetap mintak extra RM 150 dari dia. Elaun kena tibai, aku cakap kat dia. Dia okay kan je. Tamat je panggilan terus emel outcome dan arahan Mahkamah bersama butiran perbankan aku.

Bila hilang sikit penat baru terfikir, aku kena tibai dengan 3 hakim dan aku selamat dan dapat apa yang diarahkan untuk pohon dari Mahkamah. Aku berjalan ke kereta dengan keyakinan membuak-buak. If I can do this, I can do anything, aku ingat aku ulang-ulang dalam kepala. Masa itu kalau kena tembak pun aku rasa boleh tepis peluru. Bila dah tua sikit ini baru lah terfikir betapa kurang bijaknya aku ambik brief tanpa tau fakta penuh, walaupun hanya kes MOB.

Petang yang sama RM 300 masuk dalam akaun aku. Sejak dari hari itu firma yang sama banyak bagi aku kerja MOB (termasuklah mintak adjournment appeal) di Istana Kehakiman hinggalah sistem E-Review digunapakai. Tak lama lepas hari tersebut aku dapat tahu rupanya standard rate MOB di Istana Kehakiman adalah sekitar RM 300 dan itu adalah caj aku selagi mana ada MOB di Istana Kehakiman. Sejak hari itu juga kalau ada yang mintak aku MOB aku akan berkeras minta segala dokumen dan kertas kausa berkaitan di emel pada aku. Sekurang-kurangnya kalau kena hentam dengan Majistret/Hakim/Yang Arif Hakim tahu apa nak di jawab. Kalau kecundang sekalipun sekurang-kurangnya melawan.

Bila kau buat kerja-kerja MOB ini bagi aku dia adalah sesi practice run bagi kau untuk menyediakan mental dan jiwa kau untuk perbicaraan penuh, pendengaran rayuan. Macam peninju berlatih dengan menumbuk beg pasir. Cuma dalam analogi ini, kau bukan peninju, kau adalah beg pasir. Tak best bagi sesetengah orang tapi bagi aku untuk salah satu cara untuk belajar memperbaiki tumbukan dan melatih daya tahan adalah untuk menerima tumbukan demi tumbukan sampai kau tahu macam mana nak roll with the punch, sampai kau tau macam mana nak bagi tumbukan.

Kata Pyotr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid is a factor in evolution, dan aku setuju. Bila selalu dihentam secukupnya buat kerja-kerja MOB untuk rakan pengamal samada yang tak dikenali atau kawan-kawan mau tak mahu kau akan jadi biasa dan makin berani berurusan dengan Mahkamah terbuka. Kulit kau makin tebal. Hati kau makin keras. Bila disergah Hakim pun kau dah tak melatah dan tahu nak jawab apa. Itu yang akan buat kau berkembang dan makin maju sebagai seorang pengamal. Dahulunya aku buat kerja-kerja MOB sebab nak makan. Tak buat tak makan. Sekarang aku buat sebab rindu merayap ke mahkamah sana sini.

Mungkin sekarang susah untuk ke Mahkamah bagi pendengaran ke apa tapi itu bukan alasan untuk takut-takut merebut peluang untuk appear di Mahkamah Terbuka. Susah beb nak dapat peluang sekarang. Semua benda online. Semuanya melalui Zoom, melalui pertukaran emel, melalui E-review. Jangan tunggu boss/partner/senior suruh baru nak ke Mahkamah. Kau tanya direct terus, mintak, rayu kalau perlu. Berbunga-bunga hati bos/partner/senior ada junior yang bersemangat macam kau. Kalau beramal/Membuat latihan dalam kamar di firma yang mengamal undang-undang jenayah memang kebanyakkan masa akan ke Mahkamah. Kalau beramal/Membuat latihan dalam kamar di firma yang mengamal praktis debt recovery pula lagi best. Sejak jumlah minimum hutang untuk tindakan kebankrapan dinaikkan kepada RM 100,000.00 banyak tindakan pelaksanaan penghakiman dibuat melalui Saman Penghutang Penghakiman yang memerlukan kau bertanyakan siri soalan kepada si Penghutang Penghakiman untuk menentukan kemampuannya untuk melangsaikan hutang penghakiman. Di situ adalah satu peluang untuk mengasah kemahiran bertanya soalan yang menjadi tunjang seorang pengamal. Pokoknya kalau ada peluang ke Mahkamah, ambik.

Lagi satu yang membuatkan seronok buat kerja-kerja MOB ini adalah kau akan dapat jumpa bermacam-macam jenis peguam dan pegawai Mahkamah dengan ragam masing-masing. Ada yang cukup anti dengan peguam MOB, ada yang sangat membantu dan tenang sebab dia tau bukan salah peguam MOB kalau instructing solicitor tak ikut arahan Mahkamah Sebelum ini. Paling seronok kalau MOB bila peguam pihak satu lagi adalah peguam senior. Memang rancak bercerita kalau kau tanya dia soalan sambil tunggu kes dipanggil tu. Kadang-kadang kes dah selesai pun dia boleh sambung balik bercerita. Selalunya mereka akan bercerita mengenai kisah-kisah perang mereka, kes-kes yang mereka pernah buat dahulu yang syiok didengar dan ambil pengajaran. Ada seorang peguam senior perempuan berbangsa Cina yang aku dah lupa nama dia bercerita tentang waktu dia di bomoh sampai tak boleh nak bawa Rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan. Hakim bila bercakap tak keluar suara. Hanya bunyi air terjun terus menerus. Bila dia sendiri cuba buka mulut dan bercakap pun sama. Seram shit.

Lawyer senior juga selalunya bermurah hati dengan nasihat-nasihat terutamanya berkenaan strategi dan taktik untuk menangani kes-kes perbicaraan. Mereka tak kisah pun kalau kau buka buku dan ambil nota, bahkan lagi dia suka. Lagi kau banyak bertanya lagi dia suka. Siapa kata belajar kena berkursus, kena masuk kelas?

Tapi harus diingat, ini semua sebelum E-Review digunapakai di Istana Kehakiman. Sekarang lain. Sangat lain. Banyak masa dihabiskan dibelakang skrin bagi kes-kes sivil.

Bagi aku mengamal ini bila makin lama semakin berkurangan interaksi bersemuka sesama manusia itu makin hilang erti mengamal undang-undang itu sendiri. Macam mana nak timbul semangat kekitaan (camaraderie) bila berjumpa atas talian sahaja. Bila kehadiran ke Mahkamah secara fizikal itu pun dah dikurangkan (kecuali kes jenayah) adakah masih relevan untuk tahu adab dalam Mahkamah. Peguam litigation jenis apa tak ke Mahkamah? Adakah lagi perlu bangunan Mahkamah itu sendiri? Bila dibatasi skrin komputer atau peranti, kepentingan dan keseriusan perjalanan proses Mahkamah itu sendiri hilang. Apa beza peguam dengan operator dron bila kedua-duanya menghabiskan masa belakang skrin?

Aku tak tahu. Mungkin ini hanya rungutan aku seorang yang lebih suka menghadap berdepan tanpa skrin memisahkan aku dengan hakim dan lawan.

Lain perasaan dia bila kau boleh nampak tanpa batasan skrin muka lawan tahan kerut bila nampak saksi dia koyak dalam kandang saksi atau mata hakim yang buntang bila dengar saksi bagi jawapan merapu bagi soalan direct. Banyak benda yang lost in transmission bila segalanya secara atas talian. Tapi itulah kehidupan. Tak ada penyelesaian sempurna, cuma ada stopgap measure yang menerbitkan seribu satu lagi masalah.

Iya sejak pengenalan sistem E-Review dah kurang permintaan untuk kerja-kerja MOB. Jauh berkurangan. Kurang tapi bukan pupus terus. Akan ada satu hari bila mana Mahkamah secara tiba-tiba menetapkan tarikh pendengaran atau sebutan secara fizikal dan kau ada kes lain pada tarikh tersebut dan tak ada anak buah yang boleh hadir bagi pihak kau, tak mengapa. Aku ada. Kalau kau nak mintak adjournment tapi tak nak mengadap hakim atau panel, atau tak larat kena bebel secara fizikal dengan hakim atas apa sebab apa sekalipun, aku ada. Selagi di Lembah Klang, aku sentiasa ada.

I’m no Kevin Costner but will take that metaphorical bullet (or bullets) for you just the same.

~Andd aaiiiiiiiiiieeiiiiiiii will alwayys emmoobee for youuuuuhuuhuuuueaaaaah (jerit macam mendiang Whitney Houston)

My Ideal Office

I have my own room  at the office where I am currently practicing at but it is more of a storage area. I’d have my books and files in the room, my desktop computer if I need to do my work. Most of the administrative related work would be done there but not actual legal work. Most of the time I did my thinking and drafting and non-admin work elsewhere out of the office. But if I am particularly tired and still need access to my books, I would lug the books that I need from my room to one of the meeting room where there are windows. I would open one just to listen to the hustle and bustle of the road next to my building while I work and to let the cigarette smoke out. Occasionally I would peer out of them to the City outside. Watch people go about their business while I try to coax my brains into thinking. Them old grey matter would take a bit of time to warm up. When I really need to think without any interruptions, I would do my work out of the office entirely.

 

Before the Boycott and pre Covid I would work out of a Starbucks at the Curve. Sit at a secluded table with a hot chocolate and just get down to work for hours. I could work out of PJ’s historic A&W, a random mamak, a neighbourhood surau, Palace of Justice’s library, the Bar room at court complexes. Whether hours long sessions or in snatches. Anywhere but the office so long it has roof and power socket. I feel boxed in both physically and mentally at the office. I would be like a horse chomping at the bits. Restless for wide open space for me to stretch my legs. The ambient noise of an office is too distracting for me. The hum of the air conditioning,  phones ringing, the sound a photocopier, the clackety clack of the lawyer next door typing furiously on the keyboard, footsteps of people going to and fro outside my room. Too loud. Too distracting. 

 

Right now there are renovations going on in the unit above me beginning sometime before 5pm (sometimes earlier) until 10pm. With all the drilling and hammering of God knows what upstairs it is impossible to concentrate let alone hold a thought. I told myself at least I know it is actual proper human being making the noise and not some supernatural entity moving furniture around or pounding something in their mortar and pestle (probably the makings of some otherworldly sambal belacan).

 

For me there must be a right balance between ambient noise and silence to allow me to be productive with my work. Too silent and it is an invitation to nap. Too loud and it is a major distraction. I find that of all the places I have worked out of eateries would have the balance of noise and silence just right. Hence my preference for them.

What about professionalism you ask? What about it?  So long as I produce cause papers to be filed in court, could appear in court properly attired and prepared for my case why does it matter where I do my work? Most of lawyer’s work are done behind the scenes anyway. Away from the eyes of the clients. The oral submissions and trials are the only ones that the client would really see.  Besides, when I work outside of the office I don’t have a plaque on the table saying: Lawyer at work do not disturb. I don’t lug the whole case file around, I don’t have to. Everything is online. I want to do my work not make a Tik-Tok video out of it. All an observer would see would be me typing away on my laptop or staring into nothing ruminating on something. I would be one of many people typing something up on their laptops. Besides, if I am thirsty or particularly peckish the ane is but one wave away or the drinks counter would not be too far away. If confidentiality is a concern, I work at a cubicle or table that gives me optimum privacy or in a corner with my back to the wall and use my own internet connection. That ought to be enough to safeguard confidentiality.

 

When situation calls for it, usually when I am co-counseling for a friend, I would do my work at their office. A few years ago I was like doctors making house calls. I would rotate between two to three offices, all my friends who are in constant need of a counsel. Most of the time their offices would be a smoker friendly premise where one could and would light up at will. Just like the olden days I suppose. When hungry we ate. Take outs or at the restaurant nearby. When tired we would take a break. Breaks would consist of throwing ideas in between small talks while cigarette smoke would hang above and around us like thought bubbles. No such thing as being stock still when I work with friends. I would walk around, peer at windows, stare at walls. All to get the juices flowing and fingers typing later on. But whether it is out of office or at friend’s the idea remains the same. Variety, not familiarity that aids my thinking process.

 

That is the usual set up for me. It works for me but not my dream working environment I have in mind.

 

The ideal office for me would have two important characteristics. It would need to have wheels and ought to be self-propelled. A touring bus is for rock artistes and football clubs, a car is too small. The ideal size would be an MPV or a cargo van converted into a mobile office. A Ford or a Maxus side panel van would be best. Man, a Maxus side panel van is just sexy. In my eyes at least. Inside would be my office. Doesn’t have to be a moving castle. Just enough for me to function as human being and legal practitioner. There would be a foldable work station flush against one side and chair also foldable when not in use, a bookshelf overhead for all my reference books within easy reach, stationery and stamps, an All-in-One printer and copier/scanner running on batteries (Canon or HP. With HP’s ink based buggery, I lean more towards Canon). Change of clothes, toiletries, an extra suit or two. Mini fridge if you are pushing it and most importantly, hooks. One behind the driver’s seat and another on either rear corner of the van or MPV for me to sling my hammock whenever I need to sleep or need to power down for a while.

 

With wheels this mobile office would have the freedom to roam the courts and allow me work at will. Kuantan today, Klang tomorrow. Roam the courts from Perlis to Johor. Maybe stop by a river or lake for a picnic or a quiet hour or two of fishing or of just plain enjoying the scenery. Inhale the clear out of town air. Go to rest area or petrol station for calls (the other kind) and stuff. Just keep driving and attending court whenever and wherever. That kind of thing.

 

It is not an original idea I admit, but I warmed up to the idea after having to travel here and there back when my MOB gig was still going on and I discovered that I enjoyed the long drives. There is something about being in between places that appeals to me. I probably had a Mongol ancestor way back. The need to be constantly on the move is in my blood. What I lack in horses I made up with horsepower. No horse blood for me, sirap ais will slake my thirst. No yurt for me, a hammock will do just fine. So long as I am on the move (that is, if I am not stuck in a traffic jam) I am free. Being on the road means freedom and I value freedom above all else.

 

Maybe I’ll put idea to practice once my boys are finally done with school and awaiting tertiary stage and get them to drive me around for a while. It’ll be a road trip for the boys.

 

That’s my idea of an ideal office.

How low can you go?

Friday last week I went to KL Court with two ends in mind, getting the cd of court recording for an upcoming criminal appeal and to see how the touts ply their trade. Well, i went to court for the CRT. The tout-watching, that was my friend’s idea. This is an ongoing topic we had been discussing on and off again. From his pupillage until he has finally opened up his own law firm. On how a legal practitioner would get their files and how low some are willing to go to get them.

He was of the opinion that there is no bottom to it, no red line if one is to survive. I get it, I understood that. That was my position previously. In law school there was no class or course entitled Getting Your Files 101 or Marketing 302. There was no explanation given why the business aspect of the Law is not discussed. If it was given I probably slept in that class or it was grossly insufficient. Most of us would leave law school full of ideas and all that cal but with not a clue on how to generate fees to pay your bills.

So our education on getting bills paid via legal practice truly began during pupillage. If you are lucky you would end up with a pupil master who are not only concerned with your development of your legal muscle but also your appreciation of what exalted oddity the legal profession is. Neither a business nor a charity but a bit of both. The lessons would be on how not to get your files and how you ought to treat you clients. But that still does not answer wholly the question on how does one get all those juicy files.

Some prefer to unshackle themselves from questions of ethics and lived up to Nelson’s (Lord Horatio Nelson, the British naval hero. Not Nelson of the corn-in-cup variety) adage of going straight at them. Them in this sense does not refer to Spanish or French warship as per the original adage but refers to the pool of potential clients there in the courts. You can find these lawyers and their kakis roaming the corridors of KL Court, mostly where the Criminal Magistrate’s courts are situated.

When my partners and I first opened up our firm, my sole aim was to rack up as many MOB (Mention On Behalf) matters as possible while we crack our heads together to find the core files for the firm. This was years before E-Review system was in place. In the course of doing MOBs all over Klang Valley I was gradually exposed to these Nelsonian adherents. I began MOB-ing for some of them, beginning from standing down their matters while they run off to other Magistrate Courts or to other court complexes for other cases to doing the actual plea of mitigation for cases they could not attend as their trust in me grew. I polished my mitigating chops by observing these fellows in action.

To be clear (this is for you DB people), I am not a corridor roamer. Never was, never will be. I am an MOB lawyer. Fellow lawyers ask me to appear at so and so court on so and so date, I would be there, i get paid. End of story.

Anyway,

So there I was on a Friday morning with my friend at KL Court. We started by roaming level 3 of the complex, left wing. Maybe our slow stroll down the corridor could be mistaken for a lost civilian looking for a particular court room because in no time we were approached by two civilian kaki (I call them kaki) Each one enquiring with expectant looks which court are we looking for.

I forgot how powerful a black and white suit can be. I’ve seen these fellas around and never once did they approach me. They know I am not a corridor kind of guy. Then again the haircut, face mask and street clothes might have confused them. Usually, it would be the other way around, in a suit, civilians would ask me where so and so courts are. Little did they know that most of the time I myself would rely on the big colourful map they have at the main lobby for the court designation would change from time to time due to renovations and such. So being taken for an easy mark by kakis was an entirely new experience for me and my friend.

Me and my friend went into each Magistrate’s court to see lawyers mitigating sentences. After a while we went to Level 4 where I met an old timer whom which we shall call Brader. Brader had been doing roaming the corridors bit for quite a while. He stopped a few years back but came back into the game after MCO. He was sitting on one of the benches outside one of the Magistrate’s Court waiting for fresh cases to be called. Naturally we got down to talk about the old days, old kakis and how some of them had gone on to greener pastures and how he is taking in YBGK files to slowly wean himself off the kakis and corridor roaming. A bench away, an Indian lawyer whom I’ve seen around was busy plying his trade to a worried looking old Malay lady. No doubt emphasizing the need for a lawyer to get a reduced sentence for whomever is inside the court lockup. After sufficiently long conversation my friend and I said our goodbyes to Brader. We then went to one of the magistrate courts there to continue our observation of criminal lawyers plying their trade. We saw one successfully pleading for a binding over order for a wife of an addict who was caught with the husbands small stash.

Nothing much was going on at Level 4. We went to Level 1, I thought we might observe the goings on at the traffic courts and other. Brader had warned us that a particularly bold group of lawyers held sway over the traffic court and urged caution on our part for they jealously guard their realm. This we could not confirm. We found our way barred by a pair of RELA guys. Judging from their extra inquisitive questions of our reason for being there, there must be a particularly juicy case going on in there. But not wanting to court trouble, we made a u-turn and went back to Level 4 to one of the magistrate’s court where the lady magistrate is particularly cute and gave sensible compounds to minor drug offences.

As we opened the wooden doors from the elevator leading to the corridor outside, there was a sharply dressed young man with his back to us, typing something on his smartphone. A lawyer from the looks of it. He turned to face us having heard the wooden doors open. As he saw us I can see the split-second calculation as his eyes took our street clothes into consideration before he greeted us with a wide smile and querying where are we heading. His eyes now shone with the predatory gleam of a shark sensing a prospective lunch. Being a smartass, i simply pointed to my right and said, going that way and left him hungry.

Me and my friend took to the cafe after it was clear that no more cases will be heard at the cute lady magistrate’s court. Over lunch my friend broached the subject again, about being approached by the kakis and the young male lawyer at Level 4. He said ‘’Takde class langsung bang diorang ni’’. I have no objections there. They reminded me of the kind people who would crowd the jetties and airport lobbies of local holiday destinations hollering that they can get you rented car or van or motorcyle and whatnot. The only difference here is that it is done outside the court rooms and some of them are in suits and in possession of practicing certificates.

‘’But good money bro’’, I said to tempt him. From our conversation with Brader the rates for Plea in Mitigation has fallen a bit but if one were to secure at least three cases a day, in a week one could make what a fresh LA makes in a month, more or less. My young friend’s face curled in distaste and he repeated the same line: ‘’Takde class Bang’’.

So I guess there is a bottom for him after all and I am reminded of mine. We all want to survive, sure. Times are always hard and that sometimes a firm is just propped up by hopes of payment and prayers alone. But money is not everything. It cannot be everything. There has to be something greater and more fulfilling than having your bills paid (Like a big bowl of Beehun Soto with generous amount of shredded chicken and begedil). We ought to have some dignity in us. We need a daily reminder to us that we are in a profession that goes beyond money and what comes with it. Maybe that is an idealistic and quaint thing to say but if we do not stand for something we stand for nothing. If we stand for nothing, we are nothing.

These corridor roamers are small fries which often lead to more morally reprehensible practice, palm greasing being one of it and it is not confined to the Criminal Law practice alone. Some half-hearted poster and banner placement in court is not going to work. An active measure is needed. I was shocked when I was told that Bar Council had no enforcement or investigative department. And yet they want to eradicate touting. As the common parlance goes: Sembang la weh.

At the same time, I get it why these people do what they do. The lure of easy money, survival. The former is up to the lawyers but something can be done for the latter. You can call it excuses sure but those are the underlying causes. The sad thing is that there is a platform for lawyers to do criminal case and get paid without having to roam the corridors. There’s Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaaan (YBGK) where you can represent an accused for remand, bail, mitigation, trial and even up to appeals and get paid for it. But the pay rate is crap and payment is made once every 4 months. Not really helpful considering bills are due every month. Now, there are complaints from some YBGK lawyers about claims being denied or halved for flimsy reasons and more ridiculous requirements before any claims are processed, as if filling in claim forms by hand is not time-consuming enough. Sure there are some lowlifes falsifying claims and whatnot but to tar the rest of us with the same brush is just unfair. Make YBGK an attractive alternative to corridor roaming and you can reduce the number of corridor roamers. I say reduce because to totally eradicate is an unrealistic metric to be achieved. The lure of easy money is always there. All than can be done is to remind lawyers to not give in to the temptation.

Deliver us from unpaid bills and lead us not into solicitation, that kind of thing.

At the end of the day the question of how does a practitioner find them files while remaining principled and unstained by the dust of earthly existence, remains mostly a mystery to me. How low am I willing to go? I do not know. I hope to stay straight and true as we all should be. I pray that I do. One thing I do know for sure is that I'm not roaming no corridors. No sir.

Not that low.