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.

 

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.

So that I Will remember

 

I have misplaced my glasses many times ever since I needed one. I have misplaced them so many times in a week that my wife begged with me to get one of those neck strap thing for my glasses as to do way with my almost daily questions as to whether she had seen my glasses. But pride prevailed. Though my body ached all over in the morning and rare strands of white are slowly creeping into my black head of hair and I have to spend some time looking for my glasses everyday, I am adamant that I am not of that age bracket. Hell no. Until the day I am offered senior discounts, I will maintain the delusion of time having no mastery over me.

Like my glasses, same goes with things that I encounter. I have learned that what is not written down will be lost or forgotten. That saying of Madey about Malays came to mind. The practice of stories, traditions, laws and customs being passed down from orally from one generation to another is dying out. One might say that written records have somewhat robbed the magic out of oral story telling aspect of memory and records but such is the way of the world. One things perishes and another will take its place. Now, physical books are slowly being complemented with e-books and yet we are still not a society of readers, but that is a matter for another day. Anyhow, point is, write it down or you are liable to forget the damned thing you are supposed to remember. What you jot down, you can see. What you can see, you can retain better in your mind.

I thought that my love of typing things (and making things up) to be no more than a youthful indulgence, a passing fad for many blogs of my contemporary during university days have lain fallow after the late 2010s when most of us joined the working world but time showed otherwise. I am now required to treat writing as an occupational hazard though it be in terse legalese and of the truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe, when I can carve out the time I will be able to type/make things up again for fun (and for a bit of profit). Not in court of course and not here, in this blog.

Unlike its many predecessors lost in the Void, the purpose of this blog is for me to write down what I have discovered throughout my practice as long as I am in practice. More or less- lah. If I do write about family and the human things which I will from time to time it is because I wanted to remind myself the reason why I am in legal practice to begin with. So bear with me.

Another reason I started this blog also is because some time ago in the course of a conversation that began in a clear late afternoon and ended in the dim twilight where you can barely see each other’s face in the murk, a guru of mine suggested to me to get typing again as the means to let off the excess angst and steam of litigation practice in a healthy way. It works, to certain extent.

While I cuss and indulge in profanities (which is one way of looking at it) in my stuff here from time to time, I choose to look at it as putting extra emphasis to certain points I am making. I am after all letting some steam and trying to record things at the same time.

I write in both Malay and English because my Malay is mostly in bahasa pasar which could do with refinement and my English could do with an improvement in terms of clarity and quality. Maybe not King’s English material but something pleasant to the ears and eyes at the very least.

That got me thinking.

If King’s English is the yardstick of the correct and pure version of English then what is the Malay version of it? Agong’s Malay? If so which Agong? I mean we have words like Bajet which is the shameless phonetic copy of the word ‘’budget’’. The word Bajet was previously used by my schoolmates to refer to the act of being stingy with your lunch or goodies or what ever you have on hand.

Eg:

- Weh, sikit roti kau

-Tak boleh.

-Ek eleh, bajet betul kau ni

I’d like to think perhaps one of them have risen high in the world, into the Parliament itself even, to have made the word bajet on the lips of every politicians every year. That would be something.

Anyway, I hope this blog to be the online reference point for my future self as long as the servers are up and running. So that if my memory fails me earlier than expected, it would be a repository of my practicing life. Perhaps my sons would come across it one day, cackling and hooting in laughter at my discoveries and my many attempts to impose order to chaos that is my life as a practitioner.

If my conclusions are wrong, correct me. If you find it useful, good for you. Mine is about the basic stuff. Nothing fancy or in depth as I find most blogs or stuff written by older and more experienced lawyers. Mine is about the kind of things (not strictly about legal practice) you would be afraid to ask your boss or bosses for fear of being seen as less manly or not as bright as previously thought of. If you think what I write about is shit, then it is on you who are reading this to write something better and far more interesting.

In a way this blog is that neck strap thing, but for my practice (mainly). There are after all limits to my (many) delusions.

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.