Lawyers must constantly improve skills

By Roger Tan

The Bar Council will be advocating the CPD scheme at the 66th annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar, and we, as lawyers, must not be averse to change.  

TOMORROW at the 66th annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council will attempt for the fourth time, after failing in 2003, 2005 and 2006, to introduce a mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) scheme for all practising lawyers and pupils in Peninsular Malaysia.

Under the proposed CPD scheme, a lawyer will have to chalk up 16 CPD hours or points in each 24-month cycle commencing July 1.

A pupil, on the other hand, has to accumulate eight CPD hours during his nine months of pupillage 
(training). The CPD points can be earned from participating in a variety of CPD activities - ranging from attending courses and seminars, lecturing, writing law books and articles (such as this I hope) to attending Bar’s general meetings and activities in accordance with a set of CPD Guidelines.

This scheme will be implemented on a voluntary basis for the first two years. After that, failure to accumulate the requisite CPD points within the stipulated period may result in the lawyer not being able to renew his practising certificate for the following year and the pupil not being able to be admitted to the Bar.

In addition to this, the non-CPD compliant lawyer may also face disciplinary proceedings as this may be tantamount to a “misconduct” within the meaning of section 94(3)(k) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA).

It appears that the main reason why the Bar Council is advocating the CPD scheme is that other Malaysian professionals like architects, engineers, company secretaries and accountants as well as other major legal jurisdictions like Australia, Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa and the United States all have a mandatory CPD scheme.

However, to me, there must first be in place a proper legal framework and infrastructure for implementing the CPD scheme before it is made mandatory. Perhaps, the Bar Council can successfully come to grips with these matters in a matter of two years.

In this respect, we have much to learn from Singapore how it prepares the legal profession there for the CPD scheme which is expected to be fully implemented by April.

Its CPD scheme will be administered by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE). No lawyer will be exempted as of right from the scheme, but those who seek exclusion from it may apply to a Waivers Committee established under the SILE.

For this purpose, the Legal Profession Act of Singapore (SLPA) was amended. Section 10(2)(i) of SLPA empowers the Board of Directors of SILE, after consulting the Singapore Minister of Law and Council of the Law Society, to make rules to “prescribe the requirements relating to continuing professional development that must be satisfied by advocates and solicitors … and the measures which may be taken to verify whether those requirements have been complied with and to enforce compliance with those requirements.”

Currently, our LPA does not have a similar provision, albeit it can be argued that such rules can still be made under section 77(1) LPA with the approval of the Attorney General.

Further, if Sections 32 and 10 of the LPA are not respectively amended, it may be unlawful for the Bar Council to deny a lawyer his practising certificate or prevent a pupil from being admitted to the Bar for non-compliance with the CPD Guidelines.

Further, it is arguable whether a resolution of the Bar of this nature can be treated as ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution which provides that no one should be deprived of his life (which our courts have interpreted to include livelihood) save in accordance with the ‘law’.

In any event, it is hoped that before the CPD scheme is made mandatory, the Bar Council will resolve these issues as well as consider the idea of incorporating a special purpose vehicle wholly owned by the Malaysian Bar to administer the CPD scheme.

Apart from the above reservations, I would declare my support for a mandatory CPD scheme. In coming to my decision, I find support in the words of Singapore Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and the then Law Society vice president Wong Meng Meng spoken on May 29, 2010 at a ceremony admitting 248 new lawyers to the Singapore Bar.

“The law is a profession of life-long learning and the best lawyers are those who learn all the time. Unless you work at it continually, it may still not be very much at the end of your career. A lawyer can never truthfully say that he has learnt enough, and the day he says that is the day he should retire from practice,” Chan said.

“If a lawyer thinks that he has absolutely not enough to learn then that is the beginning of his downfall. And that is also part and parcel of arrogance,” added Wong.

Of course, there are various opposing views to making the CPD scheme mandatory, for example, that there should be no interference with a professional’s independence and neither should they be forced and treated like children. Life-long learning is a personal choice and if the lazy and egotistic ones do not improve themselves, they will soon be consumed by market forces. In other words, one can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink! The scheme is introduced essentially to address the problem with poor attendance at the Bar’s annual general meetings and law seminars and conferences.

Also, compelling lawyers to attend courses cannot guarantee that they will be attentive during the entire exercise. The CPD points can be easily manipulated as there is no effective mechanism to ensure that members who sign up for the relevant CPD activities will stay on until completion. For practitioners from small firms and in remote areas, they are genuinely concerned about the costs involved and the accessibility to CPD activities in and near the areas where they practise. Most of all, it is not fair to say that those who are against CPD are not for continuing professional development when the whole scheme has not been thought through carefully.

Some of the above views are not without basis. But they are not new. The list will go on for those who are just not interested in it. They had all been employed in the last three mentioned annual general meetings to shoot down this proposed scheme. Of course, in the light of the last three unsuccessful attempts, had the Bar Council gone ahead to legislate and introduce it without first reverting to the members, the entire Council will most likely be hauled up to answer a motion of no confidence in an extraordinary general meeting.

But that should not mean that this time we should resign to fatalism as if we are flogging a dead horse simply because a voluntary scheme would never work. We must not be averse to change and must have the courage to show that we can self-regulate in our interest as well as in the public interest. To my mind, acquiring knowledge is just like drinking water. No doubt, there are bound to be teething problems in its initial implementation, but unless we bite the bullet and go ahead with it, we would never to able to realise its potential benefits.

In fact, this minimal means of maintaining and improving lawyering skills is hardly a painful process. In Singapore, in addition to meeting the requirement of CPD, a lawyer who now intends to practise as a sole proprietor or a partner of a law firm must also successfully complete the Legal Practice Management Course conducted by the Law Society. Section 75C of SLPA also states that only a lawyer or a legal officer of more than three years of experience is allowed to set up or join a law practice as a sole proprietor or a partner. Similarly, in most other jurisdictions, all new law graduates are also required to sit and pass a common Bar examination.

Favouring a mandatory scheme will show that we lawyers are committed to maintain and remain professionally competent in the public interest.

I am sure experience tells us if it is to be left to the individuals to undertake continuing professional development, little will be done. There is also no point to bemoan the declining quality of new entrants to the legal profession if we the current practitioners do not lead the way in raising the bar towards excellence.

It is for this same reason that we say lawyers practise law because we can never be perfect in it, and we have to keep on practising with the hope that someday we will become perfect in what we practise. Hopefully, that day will be day when we retire from law practice.

That said, the biggest concern now is actually how many lawyers will bother to turn up for the meeting tomorrow. With the 2006 amendment to the LPA, the quorum is now set at 500 out of 14,000 lawyers. It is anticipated that not more than 1,000 will attend, and by the time the vote is taken on the motion, there will probably be not more than three to four hundred lawyers left to make a decision that will affect all these 14,000 learned lives.

In those years before 2006 when it was mandatory to meet the high quorum requirement without which the new Council could not be formed to issue practising certificates, thousands of lawyers would somehow with the fine spirit of camaraderie make an effort to meet this mandatory requirement. But tomorrow, when attendance is almost entirely voluntary, will tell whether this motion will be killed for the fourth time or carried for the very first time. Let us hope that the insouciance and ‘tidak-apa’ attitude of majority of members of this honourable profession will not once again take the blame.

Finally, may all lawyers draw wisdom from these inspirational words of Maimonides (1135-1204) in the Daily Prayer of a Physician before Visiting a Sick Man: “When wiser men teach me, let me be humble to learn; for the mind of man is so puny, and the art of healing is so vast … May there never rise in me the notion that I know enough, but give me strength and leisure and zeal to enlarge my knowledge. Our work is great and the mind of men presses forward forever.”

*The writer is a former member of the Malaysian Bar Council.

Jail for Hoslan, a former imam who thew slipers at judges

Court finds former imam guilty of throwing slippers at judges

 By M. MAGESWARI mages@thestar.com.my 

Feeling remorseful: Hoslan apologised to the judiciary yesterday for what he did at the Federal Court.

PUTRAJAYA: A former imam who created a stir when he threw his slippers at a panel of three judges during a court proceeding last month has been sentenced to a year in jail for contempt of court.

Hoslan Husin, 46, was found guilty on grounds that he had failed to give a sufficient explanation for his conduct.

Hoslan, who wore a green serban and clad in a black robe, arrived at the Federal Court at 9.35am without any shoes.

Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin inform-ed Hoslan that a show cause notice had been issued to him for contempt of court after one of his slippers hit a deputy registrar who was on duty in court that day.

Hoslan was said to have committed the offence during a proceeding in the Federal Court between 10.15am and 10.30am on Feb 22.

Hoslan’s lawyer, Karpal Singh, said “his (Hoslan) actions is indefensible but there are other considerations”.

When asked to give an explanation, Hoslan said: “This is a charge imposed on me. I am confused. From the very beginning, everything has been confusing.

“The case should be heard in a Syariah court and not a civil court. The sentence for an imam should be decided by a Syariah court if he is found guilty,” he said.

Hoslan then started sobbing. He bowed his head and covered his face.

In an unanimous decision, Justice Zulkefli said the Bench convicted Hoslan for contempt of court after he failed to give a sufficient explanation during show cause proceedings.

In mitigation, Karpal said Hoslan regretted his actions and was prepared to apologise to the court.

Karpal said Hoslan, who is an environmental officer, has seven children aged between six and 16 and aged parents to take care of.

Hoslan expressed remorse for what had transpired in court and apologised to the judiciary.

Related post:

Judges, Throw the book at Hoslan! 

IBM's New Optochip Transfers One Trillion Bits Per Second

By Alex Knapp, Forbes Staff

The Holey Optochip (Credit: IBM Research)

As Big Data increasingly becomes a part of our economy bandwidth becomes increasingly important. Not just wired or wireless bandwidth, either. When it comes to server racks and supercomputers, the internal bandwidth within a computer also matters a lot more.

IBM has made a big step forward in improving that bandwidth with their announcement today that they’ve developed a parallel optical transceiver – dubbed the “Holey Optochip” – that’s capable of transferring information at the rate of one trillion bits per second. That’s eight times faster than currently available optical components.

“We’re trying to deliver a component that looks like an electrical chip,” IBM researcher Clint Schow told me on the phone yesterday. “But it also had to be dense, compact, and power efficient. We were also focused on delivering it with components available today.”

IBM Paves The Way Towards Scalable Quantum Computing Alex Knapp Forbes Staff

For the prototype optochip, the IBM research team drilled 48 holes in a conventional 90nm CMOS chip, which then allowed for the placement of 24 receiver and 24 transmitter channels within the chip. Because it’s so compact, the chip is incredibly power efficient – it consumes less than five watts. And by using a standard CMOS chip, they’re able to bring the interconnects as close to the processors as possible, which allows for its incredible transfer speeds.

IBM’s next step will be to work with commercial partners to further refine and develop the chip. Even though the current iteration is only a prototype, Schow is confident that the development cycle for commercial applications will be short. That’s because all of the individual components of the chip are readily available, and the modifications can be performed without customized equipment.

“Part of the real advantage of this chip is that we put it together by using small tweaks in clever ways,” he said.

 Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related post:
IBM Scalable Quantum Computing

Middle East Faces Tensions Between Online Child Protection and Internet Freedom

Larry Magid, ForbesContributor

Panelists talk about how to protect children without censoring the Internet in Qatar

I’m in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar for a two-day conference where representatives of government, non-profits and businesses from throughout the Middle East will join their counterparts from other regions to discuss “Promoting Online Safety and Cyber Ethics in the Middle East.” The conference is run by the Washington-based Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) along with ICTQatar. Sponsors include Google, Microsoft and Vodaone.

Social media and Arab Spring

I came to moderate a panel on the impact of social networking where speakers from Facebook, Yahoo, Aljazeera and OfokSystem talked about the role social networks like Facebook and Twitter played in Arab spring. Although conditions on the ground in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries were responsible for the unrest, social networking provided a vehicle for protestors to spread the word and organize protests.  There was a general consensus among the speakers that the best path for governments going forward is to encourage openness and a free flow of information lest other leaders risk following in the footsteps of ousted Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
David Gross

The conference’s opening sessions featured a discussion between FOSI CEO Stephen Balkam and  former U.S. ambassador David A. Gross, who took delegates on a walk down memory lane about the history of Internet regulation in the U.S. and Europe.

Balkam asked Gross to comment on the tension between the tendencies to want to protect children via Internet regulation and government imposed filtering vs. wanting to promote free speech.

“Every parent naturally as a matter of biology as well as intellect wants to protect children,” said Gross. “A lot of these issues are variations of an old theme with each country wanting to make its decisions in their own way based on their own culture.”

But what’s different is that kids are often more tech savvy than adults. “The extraordinary and maybe unprecedented twist is that technology and Internet related technology seems to be more intuitive for young people than the adults who are making the rules.”

Gross said that the Internet does not lend itself to being heavily regulated by government but instead “a more organic multi-stakeholder approach that includes government but also schools, parents, non-governmental organizations and corporations “coming together to field their way through it.”

Changes over time

Gross pointed out that the difference between the nineties and now “is that the issues are more complex,” thanks in part to cloud computing and the rise of international companies like Google and Microsoft.  Also, the discussion, which used to be between Europe and the U.S. is now “a conversation that is truly global which means that the complexities have gone up enormously. Instead of two players you now have 100+ players,” he said.

Recognizing cultural differences among countries, Gross does not advocate a one-size-fits all policy.  “Ultimately there are going to have to be accommodations and how these things get resolved will fundamentally determine the economic well being of many countries.” While this may seem daunting, he’s optimistic that it can be worked out. “With technology and clever policy making everyone will be able to live within their own set of rules.”

In the past, said Gross, “what your future would turn out to be depended mostly on who your parents were and where you were born but, because of the Internet, that is no longer the case.” Access is truly global and truly open, but the danger, he added,”is from those who will shut that down.”

The conference is being held in conjunction Qitcom 2012, a technology exhibition and conference that features technology companies from around the world seeking business opportunities in Qatar and neighboring states.  Forbes lists Qatar as the world’s richest country while the CIA World Fact book estimates Qatar’s per capita GDP at $102,700.

While Internet safety advocates and tech professionals were meeting at the FOSI and Qitcom events in one part of the city, eight heads of state from the Arab region, government ministers and Arab tech industry leaders were participating in the Connect Arab Summit to talk about expanding technology opportunities in the region.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Google+ Games: Positive Signs and Open Critiques

Tomio Geron, Forbes Staff

Google+ needs to make many improvements to its games platform, according to developers and Google itself, but some developers see good early returns and large potential with the platform.

Google+ is the “social layer” on top of everything the search giant now does, and games are a key part of Google+, said Punit Soni, lead product manager, Google+ Games and Mobile. Soni spoke about the future of the platform and took suggestions from developers in a session Tuesday at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco.

Google plans by next year to bring together all of Google’s different gaming services: Android, Chrome Web Store, Google+, Native apps. ”Our vision for games centers around the idea of one Google,” Soni said. “Next year we will not be talking about Google+, Android, native client. Next year we’ll just be talking about Google games.” This would create a simpler way for developers to make games across the various Google platforms.

Punit Soni of Google+ Games and Mobile

Soni, in an interview after the session, said that Google is focusing on listening to developers and responding to their concerns. “If there’s anything I want to talk about it’s that it’s a humble platform,” Soni said. “The platform is learning from people who are the experts in the industry.” That point was emphasized by Google holding a panel with developers who were encouraged to raise their critiques or suggestions for improving the platform.

Soni explained the company’s strategy in launching Google+, saying it was a careful and measured approach. Google launched its games platform in August 2011. The company was “relatively conservative” in not deluging users with gaming invites. It later slowly added in virality–the ability to easily invite friends and request help from friends in games. In contrast to Facebook, Google has been more cautious on virality. For example Google+ has kept its overall news stream separate from the game stream, which includes notifications for games.

Google also focused on a small set of game developers with 16 games at the start, which has drawn some criticism. It was “quality over quantity,” Soni said. Google is not ignoring smaller independent developers, he said. “For us, it was a small curated group of partners to experiment and learn and iterate together. From that perspective it’s easy with more established players. But by no means are we closed to indie or smaller developers. Many have cool ideas and we welcome the opportunity to work with them.”

Soni also listed what Google learned from the launch. First, the platform needs to be responsive to both people who are gamers and people who don’t like games. Secondly, the line is blurring between mobile and desktop, and Google has much in the works for mobile gaming. “Mobile is really, really key,” Soni said. “We have a few things in the repository that’ll make compelling mobile gaming.” Finally, Google needs to make continued small improvements.

Google+ Launches Long Awaited Games Platform (Updated) Tomio Geron Forbes Staff 

Kabam To Launch 'Godfather' Game Exclusively On Google+ Tomio Geron Forbes Staff

The upshot: Google+ needs to make some significant upgrades and those changes are in the works. As far as what’s coming next, watch for deeper integration with other Google channels, new technology such as Hangouts, native clients, mobile, improved distribution for developers, better game discoverability, and improved payments.

Google+ now has more than 100 million monthly active users and 50 million daily active users, the company announced today. Google+ users spend more than one hour a day on Google products (How much of that is actually on Google+ proper is not clear because Google hasn’t disclosed that). The search giant is now seeing 5-10% uplift on ads with “social annotation,” which means things that friends have clicks as “+1″ or shared in some other way.

Mike Blanchette, manager of platform operations at Disney unit Playdom, launched two games on Google+ when it launched in August, City of Wonder and Wild Ones, and launched Gardens of Time in December. He’s happy with the Google+ platform but says the platform needs better ways to acquire users. Right now it’s not easy enough for people to discover games, he said.

One problem is notifications, which are the hooks that bring friends into games. Right now people have to click back and forth too many times to collect gifts from friends, Blanchette said. The other question is with Circles, Google’s groups. Blanchette was hoping that these would become a tool for people to share with other gamers. But that hasn’t quite happened yet, he said.

Google+ Launches Long Awaited Games Platform (Updated) Tomio Geron Forbes Staff

 “We’re left now with a potential for a really massive gaming community,” Blanchette said. “There are really promising early metrics for time on site on Google Plus… Engagement has been really good. Communication channels have been really good. It just hasn’t panned out for the (user) acquisition portion.”

 

Kabam To Launch 'Godfather' Game Exclusively On Google+ Tomio Geron Forbes Staff

 

Massive virality or social connections with friends are not necessarily required to have successful games, said Dan Chao, lead game designer at Funzio, which launched two games on Google+, including Kingdom Age, which launched last week. One of the big differences from Facebook is that Google+ takes a 5% fee on transactions compared to 30% on Facebook, he said. In Kingdom Age, Funzio focused on a high monetizing, high retention game, that put less emphasis on virality. Funzio is seeing higher average revenue per user on Google+ than other platforms, at least in the two games it has so far. Also, it only took Funzio about two weeks for three engineers to port a Facebook game, Crime City, to Google+.

Newscribe : get free news in real time