I was very disturbed by the public comments made by an honourable judge of the High Court recently that lawyers of today are of poor calibre. It is indeed pitiful to note that the legal profession has come under heavy scrutiny by the judiciary, government, police and the public for all the reasons that most lawyers don't have control over.

The judge comments that it is very rare for him to hear someone address the court in English with the term 'May it please your lordship'. The main reason why many well-seasoned lawyers have left practice is because of their lack of understanding Bahasa Malaysia and the strict adherence of the courts to use BM as the court language of the day.

Ever since that, a whole new breed of lawyers have emerged who are very conversant in BM but have very little knowledge or ability or confidence to speak in English. The moment they try, most of them get ticked off by judges for speaking in English. This has led to most new entrants to the profession to only be conversant in Bahasa Malaysia.

Besides language, which most of us can always pick up as we go along, the main reason for the poor calibre is that most new lawyers are taught to just copy what they see without even stopping to think why they are doing so. This leads to 'rote lawyers' who are very capable copiers but are not able to handle a brief which is a little different.

One does agree that continuing your legal education is very important in the legal profession as it helps practitioners to learn as they practice. But the issue will be how the Bar Council is going to implement this programme with the limited funds that it has. It can't possibly ask its members for money as most of its 13,000 lawyers are small-time practitioners who struggle to make ends meet.

The profession has got to meet some standards which will be acceptable to the country's needs or else we might see foreign lawyers flooding our courts to conduct matters.

The judiciary could perhaps use more wisdom in tackling the poor calibre of new lawyers. Some lawyers may not have means to do research as their clients who have not paid them for the work prior to the matter coming before the courts.

Meanwhile, lawyers from huge firms, where everything is at their disposal, are usually very impressive in attire, court language and research work and this is what that they use to their advantage to impress the judiciary. One can't blame the judiciary as anyone would be flattered by such pomp and pageantry.

Many entrants to the profession who largely qualified via the External LL.B programme offered by the University of London are today outnumbered by graduates from the local universities. There are many local universities that have law faculties and may be the fault of 'poor calibre' can also equally shared with them.

The decorum and social grace of lawyers today far differs from that of 20 years ago. The judiciary itself is plagued by new entrants in the form of magistrates who can hardly speak English and their quality of judicial competence is equally questionable if not of poor calibre too. Therefore, instead of continuously criticising lawyers and the legal profession, let's at least do something to help them improve.

The honourable judge might have meant well for the betterment of the profession but it could have been conveyed in a manner where there would have been some dignity for the profession. After continuous bombardment from all corners of society, being a lawyer is now akin to being a crook. So help us God.