Dear Sirs,

The report by the Straits Times on 9 July 2001 on the dip in the number of lawyers has prompted me to express a point of view in the future lawyer landscape particularly concerning pupillage and the employment of fresh graduates after their Call.

For the purpose of this letter, I wish to refer only to one aspect, that is, the present but increasing trend of taking in pupils and paying each of them a 'fat allowance'. Many of my fellow members of the Bar are alarmed at the growing practice of attracting the best of the pupils by paying these pupils an allowance of around $2,500. This is a sum which two years ago would be the starting salary of a fresh lawyer in an average-sized firm. Coupled with that, the firm would pay a substantial part (if not all) of the PLC fee. The firm would further pay the pupil a smaller allowance whilst he/she undergoes the PLC. What are we telling our pupils today? Have the traditions and customs of the Bar, beginning with pupillage, been lost in the quest for reserving the best and brainiest of our young entrants?

The more senior members would clearly recall the wholesome objective of pupillage - which is to absorb the best skill, craft and ethics which money can't buy from the seasoned Masters. It was indeed an honour and a privilege to say, I've pupilled with 'so and so', obviously a reknowned advocate. Not so nowadays!

Various alarming practices have surreptitiously replaced the best traditions of pupillage. As an example, an alarming trend is where during the entire length of pupillage, the pupil may only get to actually meet and discuss with his Master on less than a half dozen occasions. The pupil is instead put directly under the supervision of senior legal assistants.

Another alarming trend is the practice of firms taking in 20 or more pupils, but only retaining, say, 12 of them at the end of pupillage. What is the rationale? The firms are competing with one another to 'net' the brightest and the best. Their thirst for the best echoes the practice of a world reknowned company of consultants whose sole objective was to infuse into their ranks the best that money can buy in order to preserve their fame and ranking. Is this where the more reknowned firms intend to go?

Perhaps the initial cost of recruitment is not a large sum of money. After all, 20 pupils at $2,500 per month for six months will only cost $300,000. That money may be recovered in a High Court trial. Perhaps also, the cost of sponsoring 20 pupils for the PLC at $3,500 each, totalling $70,000 may also be recovered in another M & A matter. If 12 retained pupils can each generate an income of $200,000 per annum, they will collectively earn the firm $2,400,000. A more than tidy sum indeed.

If all these sums of money add up to a number's game, then I foresee a devaluation and eventually an eclipse of one of the oldest traditions that the Bar had so carefully nurtured and kept. This future psyche will hurt our profession even more when pupils enter the profession with the conclusion that 'you get paid for learning'.

But I don't blame them for thinking this way. Many informants amongst the young lawyers and the 2002 would-be pupils tell me that if the firms can pay them well during pupillage, why shouldn't they accept? Many of them compare. They may have forgotten that pupillage is a time for making mistakes and learning from these mistakes without repercussions. Many often forget that some firms do not have the capacity or regime to rotate the pupils in order that the pupils obtain maximum exposure and tuition. It is also possible that these pupils do not have the opportunity to discuss problems with their Pupil Master. Eventually, when the pupil is not retained (or retained but asked to leave a year later on account of being unsuitable), the reality sinks in, like a knife to a slice of cake. Mentally, the pupil will not be adequately prepared for this. The mindset of a life-long profession will take a hit.

It is my opinion that the objectives of pupillage - the inculcation of the best values of practice coupled with the inspiration given by the Master for a new generation of young lawyers - have been degraded. Given the present climate, it is little wonder that the motivation for our younger lawyers has shifted from one of being the best professional, to that of heading where the money is. The profession will be that much poorer when disillusioned young lawyers, who have the capacity and time to regenerate themselves in another profession or trade, leave the legal profession.

One of the remedies to apprehend this malaise is for firms to stop mass recruitment of pupils. Culling is not the answer. Take in the numbers only when you are able to give your reliable time and training to the pupils. Imbue them with the right approach and spirit of the profession. If you wish to recruit 20 instead of 12, then ensure that you have the capacity to absorb all 20.

My last suggestion is perhaps cynical (my fellow members have informed me), pragmatic and controversial. And that is to abolish pupillage. If pupillage is seen only as another economic activity of trying out these young entrants and culling them, then the practice of pupillage is no longer beneficial. Let us not waste the pupil's and the Pupil Master's time. Simply employ them when they graduate. There will be much less fuss.

Derrick Wong
Straits Law Practice