2013

RWY wishes our friends and clients, Happy New Year 2013

Team RWY in Formula NYLC

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/national_young_lawyers/formula_nylc_inter_state_go_kart_challenge_the_as_dominate_the_track_27_oct_2012.html

Team RWY

Team RWY took part in the 3-leg Go-Kart Race organised by the National Young Lawyers Committee. It was an awesome race, and a welcome outlet for RWY team to take show-off our driving skills. 

The Team finished 6th out of 8 teams. Congratulations. 

Challenge Trophy, sponsored by RWY

Cyber Libel Suit against Google

*Taken from The Guardian
Link : http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/nov/26/google-defamation-libel-australia

Google will have to be quicker to remove defamatory content, at least in Australia, after it lost a $200,000 libel action there. The decision may strengthen Lord McAlpine's hand if the Tory peer, who obtained settlements of £185,000 and £125,000 from the BBC and ITV respectively, decides to target the search engine next.

Google has, until now, been relying on court decisions which absolve it of liability for defamation on the basis that, because it provides search results automatically using algorithms, it is not responsible for online content produced using its search engine. In England the courts have agreed with this analysis so far and in the Tamiz case earlier this year Mr Justice Eady held that Google should not be regarded as a publisher.

However, the tale of Australia's most successful libel litigant may give Google and other search engines pause for thought. Milorad Trkulja, a music promoter, took action against Google over material online, which linked him with criminal figures in Melbourne. Trkulja has never been involved in any criminal activity, but was unfortunate enough to have been shot in a restaurant in 2004.

His lawyers wrote to Google in October 2009 asking for the offending material, which included a number of images, to be removed, but received a reply saying that in line with Google's policies on content removal he should contact the owners of the website concerned instead.

Trkulja sued Google and the jury concluded that the search engine was the publisher of images of Trkjulja and related information which suggested he was involved in crime and that his rivals had hired a hitman to kill him. Google's defence of innocent dissemination succeeded only up until the point that it was put on notice of the defamatory content; the jury awarded Trkulja $200,000 damages. He had already won $225,000 damages against Yahoo, which hosted the site concerned, in March.

After the case the search engine said: "Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web. The sites in Google's search results are controlled by those sites' webmasters, not by Google."

So they are sticking to a defence of their service which failed in the Australian court. The case does not bind a UK court, but it may mark a shift in the way judges look at search engines and platform providers and that may have serious implication for companies like Google and their users.

If the Australian decision is followed by courts elsewhere search engines and platform providers will have to be a lot quicker in dealing with requests to take down material when they are contacted by a potential claimant and they will have to be more responsive to requests to sever links to defamatory content if their "not our responsibility, contact the webmaster" response opens them up to liability.

For those of us who put material online it might mean a more hostile legal landscape. The lesson will be that not only do you have to watch what you say online, search engines will have to do so as well.

We are closed on 16/11/2012

Kindly be informed, that RWY will be closed on 16th November 2012 (Friday) as we will away for our annual Team-Building trip. 

However, for any emergency; please call HW Yip (012-3111580) or Richard Wee (016-2750025).

We will be back in action on 19th November 2012.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused. 

Happy Deepavali 2012

Richard Wee & Yip, wishes our clients celebrating Deepavali, a good Deepavali.

Press Release: Bar Council Surveys Explore Employability of New Law Graduates and Working Conditions of Young Lawyers

The standards of lawyers at the Malaysian Bar, and their welfare, are of paramount importance to the Bar. 

The Bar Council therefore conducted two major surveys recently.  The first survey was aimed at obtaining the feedback of employer-law firms as to the attributes, skills and abilities that they deem important, and look for, when seeking to employ new law graduates, and to what extent such requirements or expectations have been met.  This employability survey was conducted with a sampling of 393 employer-law firms throughout Peninsular Malaysia who had volunteered to participate.

The second survey was conducted by the Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”), to gather data on the working conditions of the younger Members of the Bar, particularly those within the first three years of employment.  227 lawyers (predominantly in their first year of practice) and pupils in chambers participated in the survey, which yielded useful statistics on, inter alia, the work relationship between young lawyers and their employers, and the nature of remuneration received by  young lawyers.

On 20 October 2012, the NYLC held a public forum to discuss the results of the two surveys.  Based on the results of the second survey, the NYLC made the following recommendations: 

(a) Young lawyers ought to continue and strive to improve themselves, particularly by attending the Bar Council’s Continuing Professional Development seminars and courses;

(b) As a guide for employers, the proposed allowance for pupils in chambers should be a minimum of RM2,000 and RM1,000 per month, within, and outside, the  Klang Valley, respectively;

(c) As a guide for employers, the proposed remuneration for first-year lawyers should be a minimum of RM4,000 and RM2,500 per month, within, and outside, the Klang Valley, respectively; and

(d) Employers should consider including both cash and in-kind benefits in a young lawyer’s remuneration package.  For example, if a firm is unable to offer the recommended monthly amount of RM4,000 to a first-year lawyer in Kuala Lumpur, that firm could consider offering medical and dental benefits, or a telecommunication allowance, so that the value of the remuneration package would approximate the proposed figure.  This proposal represents a short-term measure in the hope that employers will eventually offer the recommended minimum salary amount in cash.

The NYLC also noted concerns expressed regarding the perceived exploitation by some employers, who offer very low amounts of remuneration.  However, while NYLC is aware that market forces ultimately dictate the level of compensation for young lawyers, NYLC hopes to persuade all employers to offer better remuneration packages, to take into account the high rate of inflation and steep cost of living.

The Bar Council’s employability survey revealed that there is divergence between the expectations and requirements of employers, and the attributes and skill sets of some of the new entrants to the Bar.  Law firms that responded identified these four skill sets and attributes as priorities: proficiency in spoken and written English; communication skills; knowledge of the law; and commitment to the firm.  The survey responses indicated that lawyers with foreign law degrees generally fare better in these areas than those with local qualifications, except where “commitment to firm” is concerned.  Within the former category of graduates, those who need not undertake the Certificate of Legal Practice (“CLP”) generally fare better than those with the CLP qualification.¹

The expectations and requirements of the legal profession are dictated very much by the market, and the demands placed upon lawyers by the public, who are the consumers of legal services.  Employer-law firms were also concerned over the disparate and multiple routes of entry into the legal profession, which has led to differing standards of learning and training amongst the new entrants.  This appears to be a cause for the disparity in the skill sets and attributes detected by the survey.

An overwhelming majority of employer-law firms felt that a single entry system into the legal profession, as is the case in other jurisdictions, is desirable and viable.  To this end, they agreed that a Malaysian Common Bar Course, with a vocational training component, is needed to enhance the employability of new entrants to the Bar.

The NYLC’s forum was a useful platform for a discourse on the requisite training of young lawyers, and their work conditions.  We are therefore disappointed that The Star, in its article “Lawyers not up to par” (published on Sunday, 21 October 2012), misquoted and did not accurately represent what the speakers had said at the forum.  The Star’s generalisation about the quality of all young lawyers who have been in practice for less than seven years was an unfair and skewed portrayal that placed all the Bar’s young lawyers in a poor light.

We have strongly protested to The Star, and placed on record our unequivocal position that the employability survey covered new entrants to the Bar (and not all young lawyers), and that it is not our stand that all our young lawyers are below par.²

As a whole, the two surveys provide valuable insight on the future of the legal profession.  The Malaysian Bar aims to train, and retain, our young talents by making efforts to improve working conditions, and putting in place a comprehensive and uniform system of training, in order to be regarded as a top-notch, 21st-century legal profession.

Christopher Leong

Vice-President

Malaysian Bar

30 October 2012

____________________________________________

¹ The survey reflects the views and experiences of the employer-law firms in seeking to employ new law graduates, and was not a survey to determine the quality of such law graduates per se.

² Click here for the full version of our Letter to the Editor of The Star.

Kualiti peguam muda harus ditingkatkan

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Kota/20121021/wk_02/Kualiti-peguam-muda-harus-ditingkatkan





KUALA LUMPUR 20 Okt. - Majlis Peguam hari ini mendedahkan peguam muda di negara ini belum mencapai taraf kualiti antarabangsa bagi memenuhi kehendak majikan dalam pasaran kerja.

Bendaharinya, Steven Thiru berkata, kebanyakan peguam muda gagal menepati kelayakan asas seperti penguasaan bahasa Inggeris dalam penulisan dan kemahiran berkomunikasi serta pemikiran kritikal.

"Berdasarkan kaji selidik dilakukan ke atas 400 firma undang-undang di seluruh negara mendapati peguam muda termasuk pelatih tidak mempunyai asas kelayakan dan latihan yang diperlukan majikan.

"Situasi ini menyebabkan majikan terpaksa melatih golongan tersebut dari mula walaupun kemahiran itu adalah perkara harus dipelajari sejak awal lagi," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian selepas forum tentang hasil tinjauan keadaan kerja dan pembayaran gaji bagi peguam muda negara anjuran Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda Kebangsaan (NYLC), Majlis Peguam.

Jelas beliau, kaji selidik itu juga menyatakan graduan berkelulusan undang-undang tidak kira dari universiti tempatan atau luar negara turut mengalami masalah yang sama.

"Mereka boleh menulis dan bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu, namun gagal menguasai bahasa Inggeris. Oleh sebab itu, majikan berasa sukar kerana banyak dokumen berkaitan menggunakan bahasa Inggeris," katanya.

Sehubungan itu, Steven mencadangkan kursus asas peguam diwajibkan kepada semua pengamal muda agar prestasi mereka meningkat.

Katanya, cadangan kursus tersebut masih dalam proses perbincangan setakat ini.

Dalam pada itu, Pengerusi NYLC, Richard Wee berkata, kira-kira 2,070 peguam muda yang berusia 25 hingga 30 tahun menerima gaji bulanan purata daripada RM3,001 hingga RM4,500 di sekitar Lembah Klang.

Katanya, perbezaan itu mengikut tahun perkhidmatan dari tahun pertama kepada ketiga.

Tambahnya, NYLC mencadangkan satu skim gaji iaitu RM4,000 sebulan kepada peguam muda di sekitar Lembah Klang bagi tahun pertama perkhidmatan.

Artikel Penuh: http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Kota/20121021/wk_02/Kualiti-peguam-muda-harus-ditingkatkan#ixzz2AmL9gbLG
© Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd 

Bar Council Objects to Untrue Statements in The Star’s Article Concerning Young Lawyers

Circular No 230/2012

Dated 23 Oct 2012

To Members of the Malaysian Bar 

Bar Council Objects to Untrue Statements in The Star’s Article Concerning Young Lawyers

On 21 Oct 2012 (Sunday), The Star published an article titled “Lawyers not up to par”, concerning the Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee’s Working Conditions Forum, held at the Bar Council on 20 Oct 2012.

The article in The Star contained sweeping and untrue statements about the quality of the Malaysian Bar’s young lawyers, which were not made by any of the speakers at the forum.  These statements are a gross misrepresentation of what the speakers had said at the forum.

We have expressed our strong protest to The Star.  We have also sent a “Letter to the Editor” to The Star setting out our unequivocal position on the matter, and have asked that the letter be published in full as soon as possible.  The Star has assured us that it will do so.

Our “Letter to the Editor” is reproduced below, along with the text of the original article that appeared in The Star.   Please click here to view the article as it appeared in The Star's e-paper.

Steven Thiru

Treasurer

Malaysian Bar

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22 Oct 2012 

Dear Editor,

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”, at [this link][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, representing 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 

Malaysian young lawyers not up to par

Malaysian young lawyers not up to par

KUALA LUMPUR: All young Malaysian lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey. Bar Council treasurer Steven Thiru said the survey, conducted on 400 law firms, also found that employer satisfaction of new working lawyers was “shockingly low”.

“It found that young lawyers practising for less than seven years do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills and commitment to the profession, which is vital for the career,” said Thiru at a forum between the Bar Council and the National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC).

He said the problem was prevalent among both local and foreign university law graduates. Thiru placed the blame on the failure of several tertiary education institutes, which did not include practical skills with academic learning. “So, what we get is law firm employers having to retrain young lawyers in basic practical skills that they should have learned in university,” he said.

 The findings come in the wake of the NYLC's recommendations to the Bar to increase the wages of young lawyers and provide more flexible working hours. The young lawyers have been complaining that they are being paid “too little” for the amount of work they do.

The NYLC, citing its own survey, said 28.2% of young lawyers in the Klang Valley wanted to leave the profession in the next five years while another 38.7% were considering leaving. Outside the Klang Valley, 15.3% said they would leave and another 48.2% were considering.

“Most cite low salaries and no work-life balance as the main reasons for opting out,” said NYLC chairman Richard Wee. He said most young lawyers were attracted to overseas firms offering better benefits. He said NYLC had suggested a starting pay of RM3,000 to RM4,000 a month for young lawyers in Klang Valley and RM2,500 for young lawyers elsewhere. The current salary is RM2,000.

He said that of the 14,500 lawyers in the country, 2,070 were considered as young.

Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said young lawyers did not deserve the raise.

Chee Siah Le Kee & Partners' Wong Fook Meng said young lawyers should earn the raise they were demanding for. “They fail to realise that they should be working to learn and better themselves as lawyers, rather than focus on the cash. “There are no shortcuts, young lawyers must create value and contribute meaningfully to their firms to justify higher compensation,” said Wong, who is a member of the Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee and former NYLC deputy chairman.

 By NICHOLAS CHENG The Star/Asia News Network


============

Kindly take note that this was the pre-amended version which appeared in The Star on 21st OCtober 2012. Since then it has been amended to the version below:-

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/10/21/nation/12205345&sec=nation

All new entrant lawyers do not meet employers' benchmark, says Bar

KUALA LUMPUR: All new entrant lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey.

Bar Council treasurer Steven Thiru said the survey, conducted on 400 law firms, also found that employer satisfaction of new working lawyers was “shockingly low”.

“It found that new entrants to the legal profession do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills and commitment to the profession, which is vital for the career,” said Thiru at a forum between the Bar Council and the National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC),

He said the problem was prevalent among both local and foreign university law graduates.

Thiru placed the blame on the failure of several tertiary education institutes, which did not include practical skills with academic learning.

“So, what we get is law firm employers having to retrain young lawyers in basic practical skills that they should have learned in university,” he said.

The findings come in the wake of the NYLC's recommendations to the Bar to increase the wages of young lawyers and provide more flexible working hours.

The young lawyers have been complaining that they are being paid “too little” for the amount of work they do.

The NYLC, citing its own survey, said 28.2% of young lawyers in the Klang Valley wanted to leave the profession in the next five years while another 38.7% were considering leaving.

Outside the Klang Valley, 15.3% said they would leave and another 48.2% were considering.

“Most cite low salaries and no work-life balance as the main reasons for opting out,” said NYLC chairman Richard Wee.

He said most young lawyers were attracted to overseas firms offering better benefits.

He said NYLC had suggested a starting pay of RM3,000 to RM4,000 a month for young lawyers in Klang Valley and RM2,500 for young lawyers elsewhere. The current salary is RM2,000.

He said that of the 14,500 lawyers in the country, 2,070 were considered as young lawyers, having worked in the profession from one to seven years.

Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said that most did not deserve the raise, which should be reserved in retaining quality lawyers that perform.

Chee Siah Le Kee & Partners' Wong Fook Meng said young lawyers should earn the raise they were demanding for.

“They fail to realise that they should be working to learn and better themselves as lawyers, rather than focus on the cash.

“There are no shortcuts, young lawyers must create value and contribute meaningfully to their firms to justify higher compensation,” said Wong, who is a member of the Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee and former NYLC deputy chairman.

NYLC Forum on Young Lawyers Work Condition

Working Condition Survey by NYLC

Circular No 215/2012
Dated 4 Oct 2012

To Members of the Malaysian Bar and pupils in chambers

The National Working Conditions Survey Report and Working Conditions Forum:

The Bigger Better Deal for Everyone? (20 Oct 2012)

We refer to Circular No 225/2011 dated 5 Oct 2011 and Circular No 276/2011 dated 23 Nov 2011, wherein we had disseminated the National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”)’s National Working Conditions Survey (“NWCS”). 

NWCS

At the 4th Young Lawyers Convention (“Convention”), held from 1 to 3 July 2011 at Malacca, the delegates of the Convention issued the Malacca Statement which mandated the NYLC to conduct a national working conditions survey to review the working conditions of younger Members of the Bar and the remuneration schemes received by them. 

NWCS was disseminated to Members and pupils in chambers all over Malaysia over a course of three months, from October to December 2011.  The NYLC then spent a total of five months thereafter collating, collecting, extracting and preparing the data to be presented as the National Working Conditions Survey Report (“Report”).  Attached please find the Executive Summary of the Report.  Alternatively, click here to download the Executive Summary and 111-page Report.

The NYLC urges Members to read the Executive Summary together with “A Short Review on the Findings, Comparisons and Conclusions”, which can be found at page 93 of the Report highlighting the NYLC’s international and national comparative studies, tables, reports and recommendations. 

NYLC’s Findings: A Summary

From the Report, the current generation of young lawyers in Malaysia are earning the following:

Average Pupils in Chambers’ Allowance

Klang Valley : RM 1,501 to RM 2,000

Outside Klang Valley : RM    500 to RM 1,000

Average First-Year Lawyers’ Salaries

Klang Valley : RM 3,001 to RM 3,500

Outside Klang Valley : RM 2,001 to RM 2,500

The NYLC further discovered that the current generation of young lawyers leans towards the following benefits from their employers: extra technological items (including laptops, tablets and other gadgets except smartphones), dental benefits, weekend allowances, gym benefits, wardrobe allowances, medical benefits and especially for young lawyers outside the Klang Valley, parking and travelling allowances. 

Working Conditions Forum: The Bigger Better Deal for Everyone? (20 Oct 2012)

The NYLC is conducting a forum focusing on the findings of the Report, and to propose recommendations on the ideal working conditions and remuneration packages that the current generation of young lawyers is seeking for. 

The details of the forum are as follows:

Date         : 20 Oct 2012 (Saturday)

Time : 11:00 am to 2:00 pm

Venue :  Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, First Floor, Bar Council

The NYLC would like to invite all Members and pupils in chambers, including employers of law firms and in particular, younger members of the Bar to join us at the forum. 

To maximise broadcast and reach out to more Members, the forum will be streamed live at http://www.livestream.com/nationalylc or on our backup channelhttp://www.ustream.tv/channel/nylc.

Please be informed that although this event is open to the public, pre-registration is required, as places are limited.  Kindly complete and return the attached registration form by fax to 03-2031 6640, or by e-mail to ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my, by 19 Oct 2012 (Friday).

For enquiries, kindly contact Marianna Laureen Tan, Officer, Bar Council, by telephone at 03-2050 2086 or by email at ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my.

Thank you.

My Experience as an Intern at RWY - Hoong Wei En

To start things off, I want to thank Mr Richard and Mr Yip for giving me a chance to work and learn alongside them as well as the team at Richard Wee & Yip (RWY) for patiently teaching and guiding me through the two months tenure with them. Having completed my internship programme with Richard Wee & Yip, I can now say that the experience had broadened my horizon, giving me a foretaste of the working environment and the life of a lawyer.

Working was a totally new territory for me and having never to have worked before, I did not know what to expect when I joined Messrs Richard Wee & Yip. I was a mixture of excitement and nervousness when I met Mr Richard for the very first time during my interview.

On my first day, still apprehensive of what was expected in my job as an intern, Mr Yip approached me to sit in on a discussion, which I later found out that it was an arbitration case. I was blessed to be able to work alongside Mr Yip and a claims consultant, learning new terms, phrases and processes, which I have never even heard before. It was a challenge for me, trying to understand and grasp the case but Mr Yip patiently took me through the case.

I spent my first two weeks at the firm doing clerical work and conveyancing matters, filling in CKHT forms, drafting, compiling and mailing out letters. I learnt how to handle the office machines such as the binder, the photocopier and the ancient typewriter.

Aside from clerical work, I got to do research relating to Internet Law for the Legal Tech Forum, where Mr Richard was an invited speaker.  Together with the other lawyers of RWY, I attended the Forum and got new insights to the cyber world and the law governing it.

I was also given the opportunity to sit in on meetings and court cases and it was very eye opening especially when I went to the Palace of Justice. Drafting Letter of Demands, Statement of Claims, and translations of Affidavits in Reply are some of the other things that I do as an intern under the supervision of the other lawyers. Like everything else, it was new to me but I rather enjoyed doing them.

Furthermore, I had the privilege to directly assist Mr Richard and Mr Yip in the pioneer project of Safer Malaysia, which is close to their hearts. Safer Malaysia is a platform for the public to air their grievances and to attempt to push for reforms of our security administration, with the aim to make our country a safer place. In this project, I aided Mr Richard by compiling articles and news on crime, drafting proposals, vision statements and articles as well as research. On many occasions, I followed both Mr Richard and Mr Yip for meetings with government representatives and individuals from other NGOs who are interested in working hand in hand with Safer Malaysia. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity for me to be involved in a project that is so dear to the heart of many Malaysians. Although this is not related to any legal framework, it was very enlightening and through this, I learnt that complaining brings you nowhere. We should instead try to do something to remedy the situation.

Before interning at a law firm, I was of the opinion that I would only be learning very general office work like photostating, binding and making coffee but my experience at Richard Wee & Yip has changed my whole perspective as a law intern. I was given every opportunity to learn and the lawyers as well as the clerks at the firm were patient in teaching and did not withhold any knowledge and impart freely. The people at RWY are also very warm and friendly. This makes the firm a very condusive enviroment for learning. Accordingly when I joined the firm it was a quiet period, I am thankful to still be able to learn many things, both legal and non-legal. Some important principles that I learn from RWY are integrity, sincerity and punctuality. 

Thank you Mr Richard, Mr Yip and the team.

Warmest regards

Wei En, Hoong

My Experience As An Intern at RWY - Henry Ng

Revelation of the Life of a Law Firm

Learning is a lifetime process, without which even a billionaire cannot preserve his success overtime. The attachment at Messrs Richard Wee & Yip is such an eye-opener pertaining to the life of a lawyer and at the same time, it prepares me to face my own challenges in the future.

Thanks to the past experiences shared by others, wherein I have had the advantage to make reference to, I concur on the sacrifice and contribution by every member of the firm. Because of them, I am further equipped with soft skills and knowledge on certain areas such as drafting and conveyance. With all due respect, I prefer to share what I have learnt from RWY on the aspect of ‘how to be a REAL lawyer’.

A lawyer is often being described as ‘lifeless and dull’, if not ‘cocky and impertinent’. Is that really so? To what extent it is true? Well, while I do not doubt that it may be the case for other lawyers, I am certain that RWY provides friendly working atmosphere and the lawyers are down-to-earth in nature.

Lesson No.1 – treat others with utmost sincerity and courtesy. One of the lawyers, through his experience, once told me that only his colleagues will back him up when he is in deep trouble; a cruel truth of life. I believe that this is the catalyst of the firm in nurturing a relationship of trust and respect among the members of the firm. In the spirit of achieving that, politeness and willingness are prioritised; not seniority. Even I am treated as if I were a qualified lawyer!

Lesson No.2 – enjoy the process and the journey. It is a culture of RWY to give a ‘pat on the shoulder’ when a good job is done and to celebrate anything worth celebrating. During lunchtime, sometimes with the presence of the partners, conversation was exchanged and often ended with laughter. Even the birthdays and the last day of attachments are celebrated in the firm just to appreciate our contribution, as well as recognition as an individual.

Lesson No.3 – show dedication and integrity to the profession. Notwithstanding the fact that we are allowed to err because we are human, works must be done in a systematic and efficient manner. If this code is broken, even the best lawyer will have to face the music. From my observation, RWY is passionate and meticulous on the things it is doing and frowns upon any negligence and irresponsible behavior of the lawyers and employees, especially when it relates to work.

The firm is indeed not only a workplace and a factory but also a big family. Like a Swiss made watch, every member plays a role like a component in a watch. As paramount as it sounds, even the tiniest part fails, the whole watch collapses. While I am not saying that RWY is flawless, because nothing is, I do not question the greatness of this firm. It is good that the attachments learn something of everything. If I have to make any suggestion, I would opine that RWY could allocate the attachments more to the respective areas where they show interests in, if possible. This will not only increase the efficiency of the work done, it may stimulate the potentials of one to the fullest.

‘You can teach a student a lesson for a day; but if you can teach him to learn by creating curiosity, he will continue the learning process as long as he lives’, said Clay. P. Bedford. I am extremely grateful for RWY to have prompted me to question the interpretation and enforcement of law in Malaysia and every doubt has been answered with bluntness without hiding the ugly side of the truth. Once again, thank you for the blessings and wishes RWY has for me. Indebtedness is at least what I can express; the spirit of Messrs’ Richard Wee & Yip is what I will carry.

Henry Ng

My Experience As An Intern at RWY - Tan Sue Vern

Before I started my attachment at RWY, I was terrified as I didn’t have a clue as to what was going to happen. The only idea I had was that it was going to be different from my previous attachment at a different law firm. I recalled Richard telling me during my interview with him that I would be treated as a lawyer. With the little experience I had, the idea of being treated as a lawyer was extremely daunting. Yet, a little part of me was excited that I would finally get a glimpse of life as a lawyer.

My first day started off on a good note. I got to know others at the firm as well as how the firm worked. I spent my first day learning and doing general clerical tasks. At the risk of sounding like an ignorant person, I actually learnt to do things such as posting letters (i.e knowing what stamps to put, learning about the AR post etc.) I also had the opportunity to learn the clerical side of legal work from Kak Sal who was kind enough to sit me down and teach me the whole process of how a legal suit is initiated and what needs to be done (clerical wise) to file a suit. I remember her telling me, “They will never teach you this at law school”.

As time went on, I started taking on other tasks such as learning how to draft an opinion letter, writing formal letters to clients, and preparing statement of claims and also grounds of appeal for an employment case originating from the Jabatan Tenaga Buruh. I even had the opportunity of writing my own legal opinion to a client under the supervision of one of the legal associates, Ezhan. In addition to that, I also went to court several times. During my court visits, I was able to sit in for awhile to watch criminal proceedings in the magistrate courts, visit the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya (where I met and shook hands with several “star” lawyers such as Edmund Bon and Gobind Singh Deo and also saw Karpal Singh from a distance) as well as to watch a cross examination take place (which was actually quite dramatic). I also had the opportunity of observing how a case is dealt with in the Jabatan Tenaga Buruh.

During my attachment at RWY, I was also fortunate enough to have a glimpse of what conveyancing is like. I learnt about the various forms involved in conveyancing but more importantly, I realised how meticulous one has to be when it comes to conveyancing. I had the opportunity to work with Sarah where she took time off to teach me even the smallest things like formatting on Microsoft Word noting that even small matters such as formatting can have an impact on how you come across as a lawyer to others.

I was also roped in to help out in the Safer Malaysia project. During the planning of the candlelight vigil held by Safer Malaysia, I was able to join in the meetings with several influential people such as the OCPD of Petaling Jaya and Eugene Teh of PEMANDU. The experience of being part of the Safer Malaysia team is definitely an invaluable experience as it is not everyday where one has the opportunity of being involved in a community project of such a scale.

To cut the long story short, my experience at Richard Wee and Yip was definitely enriching. From knowing so little about what it is like to be a lawyer, I definitely have learnt that being a lawyer is not so much about the glitz and the glam like what we see on television but a lot of hard work and perhaps paper work. I also realised that I have so much more to learn not only in terms of legal knowledge but also in terms of character. Having sat in and observing how the lawyers at RWY worked, I realised that it is very important to pay close attention to every detail and to work hard to prepare as much as you can. More importantly, a lawyer must always be organised. Having completed my attachment programme at RWY I realised that what Kak Sal told me at the beginning of my attachment was true. They really don’t teach you all these at law school. To everyone at RWY, thank you so much for your patience and willingness to teach me.

Tan Sue Vern

When Can a Liquidator Be Removed?

RWY Intern, Caroline Leong trying to make sense of the principles governing the laws when applying to remove a Liquidator

What Is a Liquidator and What Does a Liquidator Do?

A liquidator is a person who manages a company’s assets in the event that the company gets wound up. It should be noted that a company can be wound up in two ways, voluntarily or involuntarily. Involuntary winding up can also be described as the winding up of a company by the Court. When a company is wound up, only an approved liquidator or the Official Receiver may be appointed as the liquidator. Section 227 of the Companies Act 1965 lays out the process of the appointing a liquidator.

A liquidator’s responsibility is to sell the assets and use the proceeds to pay the company’s creditors. Basically he collects all the assets belonging to the company in liquidation before cashing it out to settle all the creditor’s claims. In the event that there are any surplus assets, he will distribute them to the company’s shareholders according to their entitlement.

This article will attempt to answer two questions. Can we remove a liquidator who is appointed by the court and if so, in what circumstances?

Section 232(1) of the Companies Act 1965 states as follows: -

(               " A liquidator appointed by the Court may resign or on cause shown be removed by the Court."

Ng Yok Gee & Anor v CTI Leather Sdn Bhd; Metro Brilliant Sdn Bhd & Ors (Interveners) (2006) 3 CLJ 360 is a case which sets outs the principles of law whereby a liquidator can be removed, which include:-

“The normal ground for removal is that the liquidator has a personal unfitness, has failed to act impartially or is in a position where his duty and interest are in conflict.”

“A liquidator who fails to investigate the affairs of the company to the prejudice of an applicant is in neglect of his duty and can be removed. (In re Sir John Moore Gold Mining Company (supra))”

The court will take into account certain factors such as the majority of creditors being unsatisfied with the liquidator (Re Oxford Building and Investment Co [1883-1884] 49 L.T 495) or whether it would be in the interest of the liquidation for him to be replaced (Chua Boon Chim v JM MacCormack [1979] 2 MLJ 156). In a recent local case, the court stated that it “must be shown that the liquidator can no longer act impartially and objectively to protect” the interest of the liquidation (Wong Sin Fan & 2 Ors v Ng Peak Yam @ Ng Peak Yeow & Anor (2012) 1 AMR 818, CA). 

Therefore, the above Section 232(1) can be understood to mean that the court can remove a liquidator if it can be shown that his removal would be generally advantageous for those interested in the company’s assets (Re Adam Eyton, Limited, Ex Parte Charlesworth (1887) 36 Ch. D 229).

What about a situation where a liquidator faces a vote of no confidence?

As a result, this author feels that a vote of no confidence from the creditors should certainly be a factor to take into account. The judge in the case of Ng Yok Gee & Anor (2006) 3 CLJ 360 felt that it was “not a sufficient ground for removal of a liquidator that a substantial minority or even the majority of shareholders want the liquidator to be removed.” However, this was clarified when the judge in Bina Puri Sdn Bhd v Jambulingam Sethuraman-Raki [2012] 8 MLJ 141 reasoned that if the applicant had shown that “all the creditors and/or contributories play a significant role, the overriding consideration is that the court must be satisfied that it is against the interest of the liquidation.”

What if there is no personal misconduct on the part of the liquidator?

This brings us to the issue of how to define “cause shown”. There are several cases which can be referred to with regards to this. The English Court was of the opinion that the phrase “on due cause shewn” does not have to be confined to “personal unfitness in the liquidator” (Re Adam Eyton (1887) 36 Ch. D 229). In another case, the court was seen as having “a discretionary power to remove the liquidator appointed by a company without any proof of misconduct or unfitness on their part if, having regard to all the circumstance, it is of opinion that their removal will conduce to the more efficient winding up of the company” (Re Marseilles Extension Railway and Land Company [1867] L.R. 4 EQ 692). Furthermore, the court in Re Buildlead Ltd Quickson (South and West) Ltd v Katz and Another [2004] EWHC 2432 (Ch) interpreted a similar phrase, found in Section 108(2) Insolvency Act 1986, to mean:-

                     “The burden is on the applicant to show a good cause for removal of a liquidator, but it is well established that the statutory provision confers a wide discretion on the court which is not dependent on the proof of particular breaches of duty by the liquidator.”

Chi Liung Holdings Sdn Bhd v Soon Kok Seng (liquidator) Chi Liung & Sons Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 BLJ 9 is a Malaysian case stating that there need not be misconduct on the part of the liquidator to enable removal as long as it is “in the best interest of the company being liquidated”. If a liquidator acts “outside the scope of his appointment” or fails to “protect the interest of the creditors and/or contributories”, then he can be removed as well.

The judge in TR Hamzah & Yeang Sdn Bhd v City Centre Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 MLJ 383 clearly explains in his judgment that “cause shown” is to be interpreted in a manner that does not insist on personal misconduct for the removal of a liquidator:-

“There is no specific methodology or formula attached to the word 'cause shown'. The court is obliged to remove the liquidator in limine if he has failed to act within the spirit and intent of the several provisions of the CA 1965 and more importantly when he acts outside the scope of his appointment or order of court or failed to protect the interest of the creditors and/or contributories or is not justly, expeditiously and economically pursuing to conclude the liquidation process as it must not be forgotten that he is an officer of court and his acts or omission must not place the administration of justice to disrepute.”

However, there have been cases where the court takes a different stance. In the recent case of Wong Sin Fan & 2 Ors v Ng Peak Yam @ Ng Peak Yeow & Anor [2012] 1 AMR 818, the Court was seen to be of the opinion that “some unfitness in the liquidator must be shown in order to justify his removal”.

In conclusion there are conflicting authorities as to whether a liquidator can be removed in certain circumstances. However, this author sees this as an opportunity for common law in this area to expand and evolve but of course, it will take time. A judgment which can clarify the law once and for all will certainly be welcomed.

Caroline Leong

22nd August 2012