THE National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC) was formed by the Bar Council with the main objective of dismantling the shackles of Section 46(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 that disqualifies an advocate and solicitor of less than seven years’ practice from being a member of the Bar Council, or Bar Committee, or any committee of the Bar Council.
It was thought that this disqualification smacked of inequality to young lawyers. After a series of representations to the Attorney-General, Parliament finally, on Oct 2, 2006, repealed Section 46(1)(a), and thereby removed the shackles on young lawyers.
With the shackles removed and young lawyers empowered, what now for the young lawyers? The NYLC’s current primary objectives are:
> Promoting and protecting the interests of young lawyers and pupils in chambers;
> Enhancing the continuing professional development of young lawyers and pupils in chambers for the betterment of the Malaysian Bar and society;
> Providing a platform for interaction and facilitating the exchange of perspectives and views on numerous issues concerning the Bar, professional practice, the administration of justice and law reform; and,
> Maintaining and nurturing good working relations with other Bar Council committees, and various NGOs and the media in advocating issues of concern affecting young lawyers and society in general.
These objectives are insufficient to provide for the needs of society and young lawyers in the current environment.
Society will expect – and even demand – reciprocity of duty and social responsibility with empowerment. Issues on promoting young lawyers’ interests and continuing education should no longer be accorded priority with the existence of the NYLC and a continuing professional development system by the Bar Council.
The NYLC needs to take a stand on professional practice and law reform, and push for its views to be heard.
It is no longer sufficient to merely facilitate an exchange of perspectives and views.
One of the main objectives and duties of the Bar Council, as promulgated by Parliament, is to uphold the cause of justice without regard to the interests of its members and without fear or favour.
This object has been echoed and reiterated by the Bar Council to the tune of infinity.
That notwithstanding, it is still beholden on us young lawyers to sing to this tune and to hold on to it as our primary objective.
To this end, the NYLC needs to expand its aims and objectives to uphold the cause of justice in two wide areas: legal practice in the fast changing environment and law reform, including new legislation.
Litigation practice has seen much change in the past year due to the dogged pursuit by the Chief Justice of the elimination of the backlog of cases.
The changes that have been implemented in litigation practice have certainly affected the administration of justice, young lawyers and society as a whole.
The question being persistently asked is whether the changes benefit society in term of economics of litigation, social values, access to justice, quality of justice meted out and so on and so forth.
Given that the young lawyers will inherit the system of practice that will ultimately be moulded by the current changes, it is critical that the NYLC looks into the changes in detail and gives its views without regard to the interest of its members.
Is the current practice direction by the Court of Appeal in fixing dates for the hearing of appeals without regard to the availability of counsel in breach of the litigant’s right to his choice of counsel?
Is it in the interest of society to encourage lawyers to form large partnerships to ensure that there will be a lawyer to attend to a hearing fixed on a day when the counsel in charge already has another hearing scheduled to proceed in another court?
Will this practice ultimately benefit society or will it burden society with higher costs?
Should the courts commence proceedings at 8.30am, in yet another new direction to change the practice of litigation, bearing in mind that some courts are currently proceeding beyond 5pm – and in some cases till 9 pm – in an effort to eradicate the backlog.
In conveyancing practice, is it in society’s interest to have a fixed scale of costs with no discretion for the lawyer to give a discount?
Although this had been debated for the last seven or eight years, and the resolutions at the AGM of the Malaysian Bar had always supported the no-discount rule, young lawyers should look at the issue from the current perspective, taking into consideration the ever changing nature of society, the future of conveyancing practice, the new Competition Act, bearing always in mind society’s interest.
Is there a pressing need for enforcement rules to ensure the no-discount rule is adhered to? Why can’t lawyers adhere to rules without having to have rules for enforcement?
The NYLC should continue the call to all young lawyers to take up legal aid cases.
The resolution by the Malaysian Bar for every lawyer to take up at least one legal aid case a year must be made compulsory for all, and not remain just a resolution on paper.
All young lawyers must make it their aim to adhere to the resolution and to lead by showing their willingness to heed the call of duty.
The proposed National Legal Aid Foundation will further provide members who choose to do more legal aid work with some form of remuneration.
Law reform and new legislation affecting society are also critically in need of the NYLC’s attention.
New legislation had in the past been promulgated without any, or much input, from all sectors of society.
Although currently there is more consultation with the stakeholders when introducing new legislation, much more needs to be done to ensure transparency and the full flow of information on the effects of the legislation.
Current legislation in the news include the amendments to the Internal Security Act (which the Bar has always advocated for repeal thereto), the introduction of the Whistleblower Act, the Competition Act, etc.
What will be the effects of such legislation on society?
What about the long awaited amendment to the Law Reform Act, which was supposed to allow the non-Muslim spouse of a convert to have access to justice in civil courts?
How can we continue to press and push for amendments to the Printing and Publications Act and other laws that suppress freedom of speech?
In addition to its current aims and objectives, the NYLC will need to expand its priorities and objectives, and strive to attain greater heights in response to the expectations of civil society.
Young lawyers are called upon to heed the call of duty in upholding the cause of justice without fear or favour in implementing the way forward for the NYLC.
