It is true that the public has volumes of hate against Malaysian lawyers. This is a dilemma because lawyers are one group of people who have specifically been taught about fairness and justice.

This includes the moral and legal aspects of what is fair and just and the need to lead a fair and just life so as to justify that they are qualified to fight for others' justice.

But let me attempt to list below some of the serious ills of this group and possible remedies.

Absolute greed - Some lawyers have developed an incredible appetite for money, so much so that unfair enrichment has become a norm in their day to day activities. Lawyers in general are of the view that if one lawyer can charge RM200,000 for a civil defamation case, then all other lawyers are also entitled to charge similar fees. The only way to be able to do this is to charge clients extremely high fees, irrespective of whether the fees justify the nature of the job involved.

Proposed remedy - Legal services can be considered as essential services as justice is something every human being must be provided. If a human being is allowed to suffer injustice then it is absolute failure of the system. This should not be condoned.

The lawyers should be given incentives through court awards for their clients. This incentive can be a small commission. The government can impose a fee for each client, which should be reasonable and affordable.

This service should cover all and any legal services required inclusive of criminal and civil of any nature. The salary scales for lawyers must be decent and attractive.

The government must also take full control of the Bar Council with representatives from the private and government sector. The chairman must be the director-general of the ministry of legal services or any equivalent ministry. Representatives can be called in from the consumer association or from other NGOs

The government must then introduce a scale of fees for all private lawyers. This means lawyers cannot charge clients at their will and fancy. However lawyers can be allowed to collect commissions on court awards.

This scale of fees must cover civil and criminal cases of all nature. Lawyers must also be strictly disallowed to charge under the table and unofficial fees. Any breach of this regulation must be punished with stiff penalties.

One current blatant example is lawyers collecting fees from bankrupts. As per the Legal Profession Act lawyers are disallowed from collecting fees from bankrupts.

Lawyers know the rules and they also know how to break them with ease and not get caught. All attempts must be made to prevent lawyers from breaking the new rules.

Dishonest lawyers - Some lawyers act as stake holders for clients and in the process receive large sums of money. The lawyers must be strictly disallowed to access for themselves these funds.

However, we have heard of lawyers who use clients' funds for personal use. These are extremely unconscionable risks for lawyers, yet some lawyers embark on them.

Proposed remedy - I propose that clients' funds be deposited into a common account with the government. If the funds need to be disbursed, then they can make immediate withdrawal from this account as long as it is signed both by the lawyer and the client.

'Postponing lawyers' - There are lawyers whose only job is to seek postponements for clients. When the time comes for the case to be set for trial, the lawyer convinces the client to withdraw the case or settle out of court.

When the client refuses, the lawyer threatens the client that the case cannot be won and frightens the client with the possibility of severe financial losses. The client has no choice but to obey the lawyer's advice. All money paid is lost.

Proposed remedy - Strict rules governing the code of conduct of lawyers should including those regarding postponing of cases. Postponement of cases should be disallowed unless there are very valid reasons.

The courts must not allow more than three postponements of the same case and each postponement should not exceed two weeks, unless the lawyer can prove that he has already another case in court on the same day.

Irresponsible lawyers - There are lawyers whose behaviours are highly irresponsible. This includes failure to attend court altogether or going to court late. He fails or refuses to inform his client about his non-attendance. The court would have issued a judgement in default and the client is totally unaware of the situation.

He also fails to take remedial measures until the opposing party brings execution of the judgement against his client. Sometimes the execution would be in the form of writ of seizure and sale or a bankruptcy action. The client remains unaware of everything and is in a state of shock.

Proposed remedy - Lawyers who fail to attend court must face severe punishment. The lawyer must pay an automatic fine of RM1,000 to his client. Further, judgment by default, due to the absence of lawyers should be prohibited by judges and magistrates.

'Misleading lawyers' - There are lawyers who will not hesitate to take up all and sundry cases, with a substantial down payment. Soon after the payment is received, such lawyers then try to mislead the client into believing the case must be settled out of court.

Sometimes the lawyer even gives out written advice to compel the client into agreeing with his opinion. As a result, the lawyer receives money, does not do any legal work and the file is quickly closed. The client is deprived of the actual justice that he hoped for.

Proposed remedy - Lawyers should be strictly disallowed from misleading clients. He or she should only be allowed to charge a minimum sum of money before the case is filed in court.

Unethical lawyers - I have to come to know of many lawyers who demand or make it compulsory for all costs awarded by courts to be retained by the lawyers themselves. This is truly unethical as the court awards costs for the clients - not for their lawyers.

Proposed remedy - A rule must be enacted that makes it mandatory for all costs awarded by courts to be paid into the name of the clients concerned and not into the name of the legal firm. This would terminate the incidence of lawyers eating up court costs.

Unfair scale of fees - Presently, the scale of fees for housing loans, or any loans for lawyers is high. The higher the loan the higher the legal fees are. This is a ridiculous arrangement. When a loan is granted to a borrower, sometimes the bank structures the loan in such a way it also includes the legal fees.

If the lawyer takes a slice of the loan, that slice has to be repaid by the borrower over the period of the loan repayment. This should be stopped. The borrower takes the loan for his own use and not to finance the lawyers.

It should be none of the lawyer's business to eat into the borrowers loan. I consider this mean, greedy and avaricious. The lawyer does not take any risks on behalf of the borrower unless, of course, the lawyer can guarantee the borrower that he would pay for the loan if the borrower was to default.

Proposed remedy - The legal fees for loans should be fixed irrespective of the quantum of the loan. There must be a fixed fee which should not exceed RM1000 per loan. The Legal Profession Act must make clear and mandatory laws regarding 'acting in the interest of the clients only'.

The lawyer cannot make excessive demands from clients. There must be specified fee schedule for letters of demands and lawyers must not demand for higher fees or charge fees based on their whims and fancies.

In conclusion, it is apparent that lawyers have an image problems in the eyes of the public.The government must take a serious view of this problem.

I hope the mass media will highlight this problem. Appropriate and urgent laws must be introduced to regulate this profession.