In Admit it, legal practice is a business , Loyar observed that at the Bar Councils's annual general meeting on March 19, '... the litigators were the ones controlling the floor during the AGM' and they outvoted conveyancers to maintain the 'no discount rule'.

Loyar also hoped that this 'no-discount' rule '.... is not a conspiracy by litigators to put us conveyancers in a fix'.

(It is ironical that the majority of 1,100 lawyers in an AGM without quorum could dictate a resolution of 'no discount' for 11,000 lawyers. One of the ways to resolve dissension and measure majority opinion is to have a poll by sending the issue by mail to all lawyers in their respective firms and to get a vote, for or against, by way of return.)

If what Loyar says is true, it is interesting to ask why litigators whose court work is not governed by scale fees would have a greater interest to maintain the 'no discount rule' over conveyancing work when majority of conveyancing lawyers themselves prefer discounts to be left to the discretion of the individual solicitors?

One may speculate that litigators' work is more arduous. It requires research of cases and precedents and thinking on the feet. It is also time consuming. Thanks to the backlog of the court system, some cases are finally disposed off only after 10 years. And one does not get fully paid until the case is finally disposed off.

By contrast, conveyancing is perceived as standard and repetitive documentation entailing short turn around time in terms of completion and payment. When remuneration is pegged against value of the transaction, it is perceived as lucrative without corresponding labour.

May it not be that it is professional jealousy of one sector of the Bar coveting the market share of the other sector that explains the apparent divided stand within a fused profession?

The stand of the most important sector of society is however unrepresented that of the public and consumers.

It is in public and consumer interests that the scale for professional fees should mark the upper ceiling beyond which a client should not be charged rather than the level below which they cannot benefit from discounts.

After all, solicitors who manage their overheads sensibly can afford to provide discounts without sacrificing professional and financial probity.

I say business because ultimately the bottom line of profit for a legal practise must underscore it if it were to survive and thrive. The pretension that a 11,000 strong body of lawyers is not essentially engaged in business is a pretension so shallow that it imposes even on the nave.

And similar to other professions, lawyers need to uphold their core values which include the rendering of expertise and commitment to their client's interest without compromise, financial probity and honesty besides a commitment to justice and the rule of law.

There is neither empirical nor anecdotal experience to suggest that the giving of cheaper service by way of discounts compromises any of these core values.

If anything, the keeping of a ceiling price without permitting discounts is the work of a cartel seeking to impose its agreed pricing on the public.

The Malaysian Bar should realise that any elitist principle against public interest is indefensible and cannot be allowed to stand. Already the Real Estate and Housing Development Association of Malaysia (Rehda) has taken the position that the 'no-discount rule' under the Solicitors Remuneration Order (SRO) is counterproductive and not beneficial to the public.

It is likely that the Malaysian Association of Banks Malaysia and Federation of Malaysian Consumers Association will take a similar stand. The global trend has also been to abolish scale fees and safeguard against overcharging (not undercharging).

Furthermore, the 'no-discount rule' may well be contrary to even the rule of law in that it interferes with the freedom to contract, and in the enforcement of the rules, it requires a solicitors' disclosure of the quantum of client transactions that compels him to breach the time honoured principle of solicitor-client confidentiality.

At the same time, the rule nurtures and breeds a professional milieu of one lawyer snitching on another, which is hardly conducive to the spirit of camaraderie which must surely subsist if legal transactions handled by different solicitors are to be conducted efficiently and expeditiously.

The Bar Council is looked upon by the public to discipline errant lawyers who flout core values, to uphold the rule of law and be a bulwark against encroachments on the rights of the citizenry besides exposing the hypocrisy of power by the executive as well as by powerful corporations and personalities.

It is a role that it cannot play if due to internal squabbling over market share, its own members are divided; indulging in hypocrisy that the law profession is not a business and compromise the time-honoured principle of solicitor-client confidentiality.

It is a role it cannot play if it prioritises its limited resources on tracking down lawyers giving discounts rather than those absconding with their clients' money.