Report was an unfair generalisation

The Star

WE refer to the article “Lawyers not up to par” (Sunday Star, Oct 21) regarding the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”) Working Conditions Forum held at the Bar Council on Oct 20.

The same article appeared in the online version of The Star titled: “Young ones do not meet benchmark set by employers, says Bar”.

Paragraph 1: “All young Malaysian lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey.”

This sweeping and untrue statement was not made by any of the speakers at the forum. Paragraph 1 is also not borne out by the Bar Council’s Employability Survey and is therefore a grave distortion of it.

While the Bar Council intends for the proposed Common Bar Course to be benchmarked against international standards (to ensure that lawyers entering the profession will have the requisite quality), it is certainly not our position that all our young lawyers are below par.

The article has made an unfair generalisation that is a stain on the many good young lawyers of the Malaysian Bar.

Paragraph 3: “It found that young lawyers practising for less than seven years do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills ...”

This paragraph misquotes what was said. In his presentation, the Malaysian Bar treasurer Steven Thiru emphasised that the survey targeted a sampling of “new entrants to the legal profession”, and he explained that this group consisted of law graduates, pupils in chambers, and lawyers in their first year of practice.

The survey therefore did not cover “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.

The treasurer’s statement on the decline in quality was in respect of the results from the sampling of the new entrants to the legal profession covered by the survey, and was not directed at all “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.

The confusion could have been due to NYLC being a committee that focuses on the welfare of, and issues affecting, lawyers of seven years’ standing and below.

However, even NYLC’s survey on working conditions was directed at first-year lawyers and not “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.

It is also not the position of the Bar Council that all young lawyers practising for less than seven years lack the basic attributes and skills.

Paragraph 14: “Thiru and other senior lawyers, however, said young lawyers did not deserve the raise.”

This paragraph also misquotes what was said, as Wong Fook Meng and Thiru repeatedly stressed at the forum that employers (who are able to give the raise) would be willing to do so for young lawyers of quality, as it would be in the employers’ interest to do so, to retain talent.

It was also not the position of any of the speakers that a first-year lawyer, notwithstanding quality, did not deserve a raise in salary.

In all, it was emphasised the recommendations contained in the NYLC’s survey are to serve as a non-binding guide for employer-law firms.

The report also failed to highlight the call by NYLC chairperson Richard Wee Thiam Seng that young lawyers must equip themselves with better knowledge of the law and constantly improve standards.

At the same time, he also said that employers ought not to exploit young lawyers by offering sub-standard salaries.

The article gave the impression that all young lawyers are incapable, and that NYLC’s recommendations for better remuneration are baseless.

This was not the position taken by any of the speakers at the forum.

On the contrary, it was the common view that the forum was the first step towards reform in the working conditions of young lawyers, in tandem with the drive to push young lawyers to improve themselves.

RAJEN DEVARAJ

Chief Executive Officer

Bar Council

---

The full version of the Bar Council's Letter to the Editor follows below

Dear Editor [of The Star],

 

Article in The Star on 21 Oct 2012 titled “Lawyers not up to par”

We refer to the article in The Star on 21 Oct 2012 (Nation, page 6) under the title “Lawyers not up to par” regarding the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”) Working Conditions Forum (“Forum”), held at the Bar Council on 20 Oct 2012.  The same article appeared in the online version of The Star, titled “Young ones do not meet benchmark set by employers, says Bar”¹.

Paragraph 1: “All young Malaysian lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey.”

This sweeping and untrue statement was not made by any of the speakers at all at the Forum. Paragraph 1 is also not borne out by the Bar Council’s Employability Survey (“Survey”) and is therefore a grave distortion of it.

While the Bar Council intends for the proposed Common Bar Course to be benchmarked against international standards (to ensure that lawyers entering into the profession will have the requisite quality), it is certainly not our position that all our young lawyers are below par.  The Star has made a very unfair generalisation that is a stain on the many good young lawyers at the Malaysian Bar. 

Paragraph 3: “It found that young lawyers practising for less than seven years do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills . . .”

This paragraph misquotes what was said.  In his presentation, Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar, Steven Thiru, emphasised that the Survey targeted a sampling of “new entrants to the legal profession”, and he explained that this group consisted of law graduates, pupils in chambers, and lawyers in their first year of practice. The survey therefore did not cover “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”. 

The Treasurer’s statement on the decline in quality was in respect of the results from the sampling of the new entrants to the legal profession covered by the Survey, and was not directed at all “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.  The confusion on The Star’s part could have been due to NYLC being a committee that focuses on the welfare of, and issues affecting, lawyers of seven years’ standing and below.  However, even NYLC’s survey on working conditions was directed at first-year lawyers and not “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.  

It is also not the position of the Bar Council that all young lawyers practising for less than seven years lack the basic attributes and skills.  The Star’s article paints a skewed and damaging picture of the Malaysian Bar’s young lawyers. 

Paragraph 14: “Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said young lawyers did not deserve the raise.”

This paragraph also misquotes what was said, as Wong Fook Meng and Steven Thiru repeatedly stressed at the Forum that employers (who are able to give the raise) would be willing to give the raise for young lawyers of quality, as it would be in the employers’ interest to do so, to retain talent.  It was also not the position of any of the speakers that a first-year lawyer, notwithstanding quality, did not deserve a raise in salary. 

In all, it was emphasised the recommendations contained in the NYLC’s survey are to serve as a non-binding guide for employer-law firms.

Across the board, The Star’s article also failed to highlight the call by the NYLC’s Chairperson, Richard Wee Thiam Seng, that young lawyers must equip themselves with better knowledge of the law and constantly improve standards.  At the same time, he also said that employers ought not exploit young lawyers by offering sub-standard salaries.  

 

In its entirety, the article gave the impression that all young lawyers are incapable, and that NYLC’s recommendations for better remuneration are baseless.  This was not the position taken by any of the speakers at the Forum.  To the contrary, it was the common view that the Forum was the first step towards reform in the working conditions of young lawyers, in tandem with the drive to push young lawyers to improve themselves.

We trust the above clarifies matters, and ask that The Star print this letter in full as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Rajen Devaraj

Chief Executive Officer

Bar Council 

¹The online version was subsequently revised and re-titled “All new entrant lawyers do not meet employers' benchmark, says Bar”, but it is still erroneous and does not take into account all the points raised in this letter.  Furthermore, there is no indication in the online version that the article has been revised since initial publication.