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.

Better Lawyers makes Better Bar (From The Star 8/7/2011)

by Richard Wee

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F7%2F8%2Ffocus%2F9056215&sec=focus

THE National Young Lawyers Committee of the Bar Council recently held its Young Lawyers Convention on July 1-3 in Malacca. The convention, which takes place once every three years, saw about 140 lawyers from all over Malaysia in attendance.

The theme for the convention was “Towards a Better Bar”, which is consistent with the NYLC’s project to push our lawyers, particularly the young ones, to continue improving themselves.

The logic of this is that better lawyers will likely lead to better interpretation and implementation of the law. Higher standards incorporated into our legal profession and our legal system would result in Malaysia becoming an attractive regional legal hub like Hong Kong and Singapore.

The theme also included a holistic improvement of Malaysian lawyers, to not only advocate for intellectual progress, but also for moral and benevolent development.

In fact, many times at the convention, speakers reminded lawyers to maintain the highest ethical standards, and to conduct themselves with integrity and responsibility.

The convention impressed upon the delegates that being a lawyer signifies an important professional position in society, where elements of trust and principles are intertwined with the need to maintain high intellectual capacity when discharging their duties as advocates and solicitors.

In short, it isn’t easy to be a lawyer, but if you are one, you strive to be a good lawyer and an honest one, too.

With the theme in mind, the NYLC worked closely with the Bar Council’s Continuing Professional Develop ment (CPD) Committee.

The convention discussed the need to increase the quality of the content of the CPD at the Bar. Young lawyers were urged to attend CPD classes to acquire extra knowledge on practical aspects of legal practice.

Further to this theme of self improvement, the NYLC is proposing to form Work Practice Groups (WPGs), where young lawyers can join small groups under the mentorship of senior practitioners in specialised areas of the law like international arbitration or cross-border transactions.

The aim is for young lawyers to learn better and quicker under experienced mentors.

Going global

Young lawyers were also encouraged to attend conferences and conventions overseas. Subject to costs, these international law conferences would be a gateway to international networking and learning.

Other aspects of improvement would be for the NYLC to assist young lawyers to set up their own legal firms and to learn the proper way to do so.

The NYLC will be working with a department in the Bar Council which organises the “Getting Started” seminars. These seminars provide excellent insight into the “how and what” of setting up legal firms.

The NYLC also recognises that to ensure young lawyers continue to strive for excellence, the work conditions must also be commensurate with that desire.

The prospect of better remuneration and a better working environment at legal firms would be a good driving force to ensure that young lawyers will want to improve, and to continue staying in legal practice.

Bar Council statistics show that more than 60% of the lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia are in practice for less than three years. The principal reasons for many lawyers leaving practice after the third or fourth year are usually the high level of work stress and uncertain remuneration.

It would be difficult to urge young lawyers to improve themselves when they cannot see a bright future in terms of career advancement and better remuneration.

With that in mind, the NYLC will conduct a national survey on remuneration and career advancement within the next six months to obtain statistics on the views of young lawyers on their work conditions. The results of that survey may lead to forums and dialogues with the employers of the young lawyers.

The convention also saw the re-visiting of section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) which states that lawyers have a duty to uphold the cause of justice without regard to their own interests, without fear or favour, and that there is a duty to protect and assist the public in all matters ancillary or incidental to the law.

The delegates at the convention, in subscribing to the spirit and intent of the theme, spoke of their moral duties to uphold justice at all times. Section 42 of the LPA became a battle-cry in one of the sessions at the convention when discussing activism at the Bar.

When the Statement of the Con vention was issued at the end (as further described below), the delegates added a provision in the statement calling for the authorities in this country to adhere to the Federal Constitution and that the young lawyers are prepared to stand up and defend the law if the law is incorrectly and improperly implemented.

At first glance, the convention may look like a stew with too many spices or like a plate too full for the NYLC to handle. To the contrary, many spices are required to make the stew better and the varied ingredients will ensure the Bar remains progressive and at the cutting edge of the law.

A five-point statement was issued at the close of the convention. Fondly dubbed the “Malacca Statement”, reflecting the location of its birth, it reflects the theme of the convention, calling for the implementation of projects towards achieving a better Bar.

There are many classy and intelligent lawyers in Malaysia, and the Malaysian Bar is a strong Bar. Of course there may be a few bad apples among the Bar but the NYLC will focus on the strengths of the Bar and harness that quality to ensure the Bar strives forward.

The NYLC intends to challenge young lawyers who join the Bar to move outside their comfort zone and to push them to persevere and persist towards progress.

__________________

> The writer is the Chairman of the National Young Lawyers Committee. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, please visitwww.malaysianbar.org.my

Powers of the Malaysian Bar

Recently, the news highlighted comments by Dato Mukriz, where he had urged Parliament to curtail the powers of the Bar.

The Malaysian Bar is not a body created by lawyers, but is created by an Act of Parliament. You will hear lawyers calling the Bar a 'Statutory Body', for it is by way of a Statute, ie the Legal Profession Act 1976, that the Bar was created.

The Bar Council on the other hand; is a council of 36 lawyers elected by lawyers in a 2 tier election to manage the administration of the Malaysian Bar. So it is incorrect to say lawyers are members of the Bar Council, as the Council is our 'Cabinet' and lawyers are members of the 'Malaysian Bar' not the Bar Council.

Sabah and Sarawak have separate Bars, and the lawyers practicing there are not members of the Malaysian Bar (notwithstanding the name).

The powers of the Bar are also governed by Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act.Section 42 (in summary) states the powers of the Bar to include:-

1. to uphold justice without due regard to its own interest;

2. to maintain and improve the standard of the legal profession;

3. where requested, to express views on matters affecting the legislation;

4. to protect and assist the public in matters related to the Law.

There are a few more powers listed in Section 42.

Even without Section 42, due to the nature of the legal profession, the powers listed above would be inherent in the Bar, for if the lawyers dont uphold justice, dont maintain their standards, dont protect the public (for legal matters), who else can and who else will?

Buying & Selling Properties in Malaysia

The perception that Conveyancing deals are straight forward is so far off target. It is remarkable sometimes how much Legal Firms involved in Conveyancing matters have to endure months of land administration issues and for fees below RM2,000.00

Clients sometimes fail to see that the volume and content of the work a lawyer has to do in Conveyancing deals are virtually the same irrespective the value of the Sale. A 10 million dollar Bungalow sale and a RM80,000 apartment deal, has similar problems and headaches to sort out.

Whilst the work may be the same, but it is not 'easy' same, but 'difficult' same. I hope that explains the situation in simple English.

Clients opine that work which is almost the same from one file to another, means it is easy. That is far from the truth, as even if the work is fairly similar, but if the similarity involves cumbersome paperwork and tiresome redtape at Land Office, the similarity is the only saving grace to the lawyer dealing that matter, knowing the work involved can be arduous and laborious.

An example we can offer here is this. If Mr X, a foreigner, buys Property at RM300,000-00 from Madam Y. And if the scenario involved a Leasehold Property (with restrictions) which requires consent from the Land Office, and the Property is sitting on a Master Title which is just about to be sub-divided into smaller individual title for each property in that Development project. So what will the Lawyer likely face?

This is just a possible scenario for the lawyer acting for Mr X the foreign purchaser:-

1. The consent from the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC) is required.

2. Once that consent is obtained, the Lawyer would have to apply for consent from the Local Authority under Section 433B of the National Land Code to allow a non-Malaysian to buy a Malaysian Property.

3. In the meantime, the Lawyer would have to also apply for consent from the same Land Office to obtain the necessary consent since the Property involved is a Leasehold Property with restrictions.

4. If Madam Y the owner, owes a Bank a loan, then the Lawyer would have to deal with Madam Y's Bank for redemption. If Madam Y has her own lawyer, Mr X's lawyer would then have to deal with Madam's Y's lawyer instead.

5. If Mr X is buying the property, financed by a Bank, then relevant and necessary undertakings must be extracted from all relevant parties.

6. If the process goes well and fine, the Lawyer would have to sort out the adjudication of Stamp Duty for Mr X to pay to transfer the title of that property from Madam Y to Mr X, through the Deed of Assignment between 2 parties

7. Since the Property involved is just about to be subdivided, the Lawyer would have to deal with the Developer involved. One pertinent question is, can the Developer do a direct transfer to the new buyer, Mr X, so as to avoid a double transfer ie, from Developer, subdivided and transfered to Madam Y, and then transfer again to Mr X?

This is just some of the work the Lawyer would have to deal. As you can see, it is not as straight forward as one think. And the amazing thing is that the Professional Legal Fee for all that work is RM2,550-00 (not taking into account service tax etc etc).

How much do I have to pay for a Sale & Purchase Agreement of a Property?

The question above is a common question a legal firm receives from their clients.

Much have been said about the No-discount Rule of the Legal Fees for Sale & Purchase Agreements (SPA) and also Loan Agreements in Malaysia. Unlike Litigation Fees, Legal Fees for SPA and Loans are governed by Rules of the Bar Council, referred to as the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 2005 (SRO).

The intention of enforcing a fixed rule is to, inter alia, ensure:-

1. Customers know how much they have to pay and not be misled by lawyers;

2. That lawyers compete on quality of work as compared as to quantum of discount. The fact remains where large discounts are given, the quality of legal work for Conveyancing matters will deteriorate

Of course, there are arguments to the contrary, that lawyers are entitled to give discounts, particularly premised on supply & demand rules. Also, quarters who wish to vary the legal fees, contend that some Conveyancing transactions incur more working hours and the lawyer should be entitled to charge more.

However, as the Rules stand at the moment, potential property buyers/sellers out there should take note that legal fee is fixed. We append below the Fixed Scale Fee imposed by the Bar Council in the SRO, which this Firm is committed to adhere to. The Legal Fee depends on the value of the property, and the Fee will be calculated on a percentage of that value.

Value Legal Fee

First RM150,000 - 1%

Next RM850,000 - 0.7%

Next RM2,000,000 - 0.6%

Next RM2,000,000 - 0.5%

Next RM2,500,000 - 0.4%

Above RM7,500,000 - negotiable on the excess (but not exceeding 0.4% of that excess)

For more information of the SRO, please click the link below to the Malaysian Bar website:-

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=545&Itemid=332

Don’t move the goal post, improve the game

Contributed by Richard Wee Thiam Seng

Friday, 07 September 2007 12:45am (from the Malaysian Bar website)

The Attorney General recently proposed a No Fault Liability System to assist victims of accident cases to have faster access to compensation. He then referred to New Zealand and Australia as two countries with this system. It is almost impossible for any lawyer to comment that the No Fault Liability System won’t work, without being accused of merely protecting our ‘rice bowl’. Whilst there is little doubt that many lawyers are involved in this Personal Injury Claims involving motor vehicle, it is also virtually certain that the No Fault Liability System will see the end of lawyers’ involvement in those cases. Despite these foreseeable accusations against me, I will still endeavour to try persuading the AG that the No Fault System will likely not work in Malaysia. What is wrong with the current system? Ironically recently the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak led a team of Judges who dialogued with the Bar about establishing a proposed ‘Pre-action protocol’ for Personal Injury Cases. The Learned Chief Judge’s team was keen to speed things up for such claims. This led to Forum held by Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee on the 10th April 2007. At that Forum, 2 major issues were raised by lawyers who attended the Forum:- 1. long wait for the issuance of the Medical reports from Government Hospitals, sometimes taking as long as a year; 2. equally long wait for documents from the Police. There were also some comments about Insurance Companies not replying quick enough and also low offers from the same. The Forum alluded KL Bar Committee members to some of the problems which causes delay to Personal Injury Claims, the very same delay that the AG believes can be solved by merely changing the system to a No Fault Liability System. Of course, needless to say, there are some instances where lawyers may have caused delays too. Lawyers are not so thick-skinned to deny that the legal fraternity is absolutely above the cause of delay. But what is crucial is we have clear evidence from the very lawyers that are conducting Personal Injury Claims on a daily basis of the some of the causes of the delay in claims. This evidence, to a very large extent can be substantiated. For the moment the said Pre-Action Protocol is not likely to take off, but is being reviewed. Perhaps a specialist court make take off, handling accident claims. In addition to the findings at that Forum, I wish to add a personal opinion. I am of the view that the Insurance companies are also culprits in the delay. These companies in the disguise of trying to evade fraudulent claims more often than not, delays the claims as long as they can. It is my view that even with the No-Fault Liability Claim, the compensation will still NOT be paid any quicker, so long as the Insurance Company are not coerced to do so. It is also my contention that the purging of lawyers in Personal Injury Claims cases would mean the victims would be at the mercy of the Insurance Company, and this time, the victim has no representation and no one to shield, protect and defend him/her. At this juncture, this write up looks more like a fault finding write up. And the fact is, IT IS! I am seeking to see where the fault and cause of the current delay which made AG want to propose the alternative No Fault System. It is my hope that since we can identify the causes for delay, AG only needs now to try tackle these issues and try resolving it. Clearly it is a problem which can be solved, so why change the current system? Would the No-Fault Liability System work? I venture to quote from the Australian Journal ‘The Agenda’, Vol 9 No 2, 2002, page 135. [please see : http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/009/02/9-2-A-4.pdf] In that article, the authors Bronwyn Howell, Judy Kavanagh and Lisa Marriott said this at pages 137 to 138:- “No-fault systems have been proposed as a means of reforming the tort-based system. No-fault systems remove the need to prove cause from the compensation equation and thereby reduce the transaction costs of the process (Danzon, 1990:4). Compensation is generally paid according to a prescribed schedule if the loss-sufferer satisfies the scheme administrators that loss has been incurred, regardless of any fault by the alleged loss-causer. Such schemes are typically funded out of levies on potential loss-causers or from general taxation and are accompanied by some limitations on the loss-sufferer’s rights to seek redress from the loss-causer through tort actions. The principal weakness of no-fault schemes is the difficulty of ensuring that the socially optimal amount of care is taken by potential loss-causers, as the links between their potential to cause loss and the costs of their actions are severed. Consequently, most no-fault schemes are accompanied by additional administrative systems, not present in typical tort systems, to monitor the behaviour of potential loss-causers in order to preserve their incentives for appropriate loss-avoidance (Kessler, 1999:13). The efficiency-improvement criterion is met if the transaction costs saved from the tort process are greater than the additional monitoring costs incurred in the no-fault system for the same level of compensation paid to individuals for the same number of adverse events. No-fault insurance schemes are common where the probability of a loss occurring is very uncertain. These include ‘acts of God’ (a sudden and unavoidable occurrence caused by natural forces, such as a flood or earthquake), where there is no party obviously at fault from whom partial cost recovery can be sought. The low probability of these events occurring, the unpredictability of the size of the loss and the exposure to large number of claims arising from a single event, mean that there is often a failure of private insurance companies to indemnify such losses. Further, as no individual has the ability to ‘cause’ the event, there is no need for incentives to prevent the loss-causing event and monitoring costs are low.” These authors are academicians in Australia and New Zealand and their views can be used as a guide to what we are facing here. As can be seen above, the purpose of introducing the No Fault Liability Systemin New Zealand [NZ] was to control spiralling costs. It is also meant to deal with mostly Medical Negligence cases, where the NZ government faced huge claims for medical negligence at its National Health Services [NHS] Hospitals. With a No Fault Liability System, the costs of maintaining the Hospitals can be fixed as the government need not make huge provisions for medical negligence suits. Another factor that the our AG ought to take into account is that in some states in United States of America where this No Fault Liability System is practised, the premium for the Insurance is extremely high. Why is this so? The Insurance Company in this kind of scheme would have no choice but to compensate a victim once the victim can prove his/her claim. There is little chance of defending the claim. So the Insurance Company would logically increase the premium to hedge their losses. Also, the AG must realise that even with the adoption with this system ALL the above mentioned delays [medical and police reports] still exist – which would only mean that accident victims now have to deal with the Hospitals and Police on their own to extract all relevant documents, for their claim. All the best to the victims! Conclusion I have said in my earlier postings at the Bar Website that I am concerned that such major change may in fact not solve the problem. And of course as a lawyer I will concede that the change of system will mean many of our friends all over Malaysia, will lose out in their income. I take a position that the current system needs some intervention by authorities to speed things up. If the AG truly wants to quicken the claims process of the victims, as he so assert in the press release, then I urge him to look at solving the current system and not changing it.