Insights from corporate lawyer Marcus van Geyzel on taking your legal career beyond the ordinary.
There is a vast number of lawyers in Malaysia (at last count, there are 16,104 of us), with an ever-increasing number of law graduates coming into the market every year.
I’m often asked for insights on how pupils and young lawyers can set themselves apart in this crowd. These 10 tips are a condensed version of what I usually share — if you want the extended version, buy me a coffee and we’ll talk.
First off, I should make clear that these tips obviously aren’t magic beans that will instantly convert a mediocre lawyer into a good one. There are so many career possibilities open to law graduates, so it’s impossible to have a fixed formula.
There isn’t even an agreed definition of what a ‘lawyer’ is. The basic categories used in Malaysia are ‘corporate lawyer’ and ‘litigation lawyer’ (as all lawyers here are ‘advocates and solicitors’) — but countless nuances exist within these broad, clumsy categorisations. What one lawyer does on a daily basis can be extremely different from what another lawyer does, so these tips will have to be adapted accordingly.
Why do some lawyers seem to excel — at work and in life — while others struggle to make sense of the profession? How come some seem to have boundless enthusiasm for their work even after a decade, while others are burnt out and disillusioned within five years?
I don’t pretend to have a magic formula to building an awesome legal career. But I guarantee that anyone who practises these 10 tips will have a better chance at staying ahead of the disillusioned and unmotivated crowd who see lawyering as ‘just a job’.
In an interesting recent Court of Appeal decision (Grounds of Judgment dated 3 February 2016), the Court of Appeal allowed a defamation action against CTOS.
Taken from the CTOS website
I can imagine this decision having quite serious repercussions for credit reporting agencies in Malaysia in general. It imposes an obligation on a credit reporting agency to ensure any information that it inserts into its database or report to be factually correct. Further, that information must continue to be factually correct at all times. A credit reporting agency cannot rely on any disclaimer in their report that the information may not be up to date and that the person relying on the report should conduct their own checks.
So for example, if an individual had originally been adjudged a bankrupt but he had since been discharged from his bankruptcy, a credit reporting agency must ensure that information is updated quickly. So quite a victory for individuals and companies worried about their creditworthiness.
Background to CTOS and Credit Reporting
CTOS is a credit reporting agency. It provides easily-accessible credit reports relied on by financial institutions in Malaysia. It not only picks up on financial worthiness but also legal proceedings like legal suits, bankruptcy and winding up proceedings.
Parties involved in litigation would normally face a difficulty. Information in the CTOS report on pending legal suits, financial institutions may be reluctant to extend loans to such parties.
On the other hand, CTOS itself will face difficulty in knowing the most recent updates to such litigation. I would imagine CTOS largely relies on the advertisements taken out (for instance, for service of court papers or substituted service) or the public court records on the Court website. A credit reporting agency would not know the immediate updates, or withdrawal of such legal proceedings.
Mr Tan’s High Court Suit against CTOS
In this decision, Mr Tan was aggrieved by the CTOS report listing out various pending legal proceedings, including pending bankruptcy proceedings. The information contained records as far back as the 1990s.
Mr Tan had been rejected by banks for loans for motor vehicles and property.
Mr Tan contacted CTOS, demanding that their records be updated as he had cleared all his debts and had been discharged from his bankruptcy. It appeared that Mr Tan provided CTOS with the information and documents to show this and CTOS subsequently updated their records in their database.
However, Mr Tan was still not satisfied and filed a suit for defamation against CTOS. HE claimed that CTOS had failed, refused or neglected to initially update their database and clear all outdated records.
At the end of the High Court trial, Mr Tan had lost his case for defamation. Briefly, the High Court found that Mr Tan could not show there was publication. Further, the High Court also found that there was a disclaimer wording in the CTOS report that the information was not intended to be a confirmation of the current status.
Mr Tan Succeeded in the Court of Appeal
At the Court of Appeal however, Mr Tan succeeded.
On the issue of publication, the Court of Appeal held that the CTOS database is available to anyone who subscribed to the services. It did not matter that access to the database is by way of subscription or by paying a fee. Further, CTOS could not be afforded protection by the law if CTOS also allowed the information to go outdated and stale such that it did not reflect the true state of affairs.
The Court of Appeal found that any reasonable reader of the information in the CTOS database would be led to be suspicious of the creditworthiness of Mr Tan.
Nonetheless, Mr Tan could not actually prove the actual damage that he suffered or the quantum of the damages. In such a situation, he was awarded nominal damages of RM5,000.00. Costs of RM40,000.00 was awarded in his favour as well.
[This post has since been updated as at 14 January 2020 to take into account the current law under the Companies Act 2016.]
The winding up of a company is the process of bringing an end to a company. The company’s assets are sold off and then used to pay off the company’s debts. Any excess proceeds are then returned to the shareholders of the company.
Here, I will give a brief overview of winding up law in Malaysia. We will start with getting our terminology right.
Mind Your Language: Winding Up, Not Bankruptcy
In getting our terminology right, we should refer to the term ‘winding up’ or even ‘liquidation’ when referring to this process of winding up a company. In Malaysia (and a few other jurisdictions like Singapore, the UK and Australia), these are the correct terms to be used. In contrast, in Malaysia at least, the term ‘bankruptcy’ is for individuals and where an individual may be adjudged bankrupt. Continue reading →
According to the Malaysian Employers’ Federation (MEF), more than 20,000 employees were retrenched in 2015 (as at September 2015). Comparatively, the figure for the entire 2014 was 10,000 employees. The MEF predicts that it will only get worse in 2016.
Although the steepest increase in retrenchment numbers are in the oil and gas industry, the banking industry has also seen several retrenchment exercises or voluntary separation schemes being implemented. The legal industry has also been affected, with many medium and big law firms either downsizing or freezing hiring.
Let’s take a quick look at the law related to retrenchments. As an employer, when can I retrench employees? Am I free to choose which employees to let go? How much do I have to pay them as severance? As an employee, what are my rights? Can I challenge a retrenchment?
The annual Thomas Philip New Year Party is a great event to kickstart the year. I think it is a nice initiative to bring together members of the Bar and the friends of the firm.
Whether an employer is sacking someone on the spot, or terminating an employee’s employment contract by serving the contractually-agreed notice period, the employer must be able to show that the dismissal or termination was with just cause or excuse.
