it depends one la. best starting pay as chambee i saw is RM 3.1k

Then y that guy wanna lower standard? If what he said is right uk would hv followed ma.

Anyway llb um can enter llm Cambridge , means standard not so bad right...
But that was gen y era... 

 

this punk is really hilarious.
Foreign graduates: come back and attend CLP which all in theory and no practical exams whatsoever. Who's fault is it? LPQB. They are the one that sets the standard of examination. Why put the blame on us?

Local graduates: Churns out thousands of rubbish that doesn't go through the retarded CLP exams and straight into the working sector, no QC for them because they have apparently studied local law so the assumption is that they are good at it. Turns out maybe 1/100 is a good student. and every 1/10 good student might be a good lawyer.

fun fact: oxbridge student also can fail CLP one. dont play play.

So they ain't god la? I for ppl say they're head and shoulders above the rest, clp must be their first year exam standard... 

walao... news complain fresh grad lawyers salary 2k, you guys sokong.

But if news say fresh grad <insert different courses here> salary 2k, you guys complain, say 2k is enough for them, dont be picky.

such unfairness.

standard loh, everybody hates lawyer.

Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said young lawyers did not deserve the raise.

If they meet their KPI or watsoever why not deny the raise?

this.
IMHO the profession should be kept expensive, like someone said so.

And CLP be kept the standard it is, barristers are supposed to be the people's champion, if every tom's d*** can qualify, then where is the expected quality? 

Macam your local U lah..

Sounds like the complaint of every employer in every field nowadays so can offer low salaries to freshies.

have to disagree. it is not about expensive VS cheap. education should never be expensive imho.

as for your point on standard. CLP is only one battle. the profession has many filters, chambering & retention will be the 3rd & 4th filter. however, it doesnt stop some not too bright heros who believe that opening up a law firm straight after chambering is the most brilliant thing to do.

btw, I heard they are going to compel pro bono work for all lawyers regardless of age and you need to hit like 3 or 4 pro bono cases a year if you want to renew your practicing license.

WE refer to the article “Lawyers not up to par” (Sunday Star, Oct 21) regarding the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”) Working Conditions Forum held at the Bar Council on Oct 20.

The same article appeared in the online version of The Star titled: “Young ones do not meet benchmark set by employers, says Bar”.

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 the forum. Paragraph 1 is also not borne out by the Bar Council’s Employability 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 the profession will have the requisite quality), it is certainly not our position that all our young lawyers are below par.

The article has made an unfair generalisation that is a stain on the many good young lawyers of 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, the Malaysian Bar treasurer 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 could have been due to NYLC being a committee that focuses on the welfare of, and issues affecting, 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.

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 Thiru repeatedly stressed at the forum that employers (who are able to give the raise) would be willing to do so 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.

The report also failed to highlight the call by NYLC 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 to exploit young lawyers by offering sub-standard salaries.

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.

On 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.

RAJEN DEVARAJ
Chief Executive Officer
Bar Council

Yeah. That would get a real overwhelming support by the lawyers at the next AGM...

actually it might not be a bad thing if firms recognise the pro bono work done. i know some firms take pro bono work into account when deciding bonus.