The Malaysian Bar's perennial problem with getting a quorum for annual general meetings (AGM), extraordinary general meetings (EGM) and Bar Council elections has often necessitated postponements. A twist to the tale this year has created a buzz in legal circles.

Rather than appeal yet again to the government to amend the Legal Profession Act 1976 to reduce the quota of one-fifth of the membership, the Bar Council broke with its conventional legal interpretation of the provision that it has followed for the past 27 years.

Recently appointed council chairperson Yeoh Yang Poh started the proceedings last Saturday with the announcement that the AGM would proceed even if the quota was not met - and indeed it did not secure the required attendance of 2,345 of 11,725 members.

His reason was that the council currently reads Section 67 of the LPA as not requiring a quorum for an AGM. This caused an uproar as high-profile senior members walked out in protest. Younger lawyers were, however, unperturbed.

Lawyer Edmund Bon saw the decision as a welcome sign of a reformed Bar, coming as it did after recent adoption of a five-year blueprint for professional and transparent management.

"It shows a progressive Bar. Things are being done differently to be more effective. The government had always try to muzzle Bar members through the quorum provision and so, this is a good move to overcome the problem. It also shows that we are committed to change," he said.

"There have been requests for the management approach to be changed because the system set up in the 1960s is no longer suitable. We are now talking about 12,000 members and more than RM9 million in accumulated funds. (As a result) The five-year blueprint was approved for implementation this year."

This attitude, he said, showed the council's willingness to listen to younger lawyers who form almost 70 percent of the membership. They have felt there is a gap between them and the 36-member council.

"Of course there is a long way to go. But if things are done right, progress and reform will be achieved a lot faster. Despite some reservation about the changes, I think things are changing for the better," Bon said.

'Get judicial decision'

Former Bar president RR Chelvarajah holds the opposite view, describing the new interpretation of the quorum provision as "taking the law into our own hands" - and that this cannot be understood as being progressive.

"When you say progress and reform, it would mean change for the good of the council and members - which (in turn) means upgrading efficiencies and functions," he explained.

"(If it is said) that we are attaining progress in this way, then I would have to disagree... especially when we have religiously subscribed to the interpretation (that quorum is needed) for the past 27 years.

"This is a very serious issue and if we want to change our view and take a different interpretation, it's only proper that a court of law makes the decision."

He said the move to proceed with the AGM without a quorum cannot be solely justified on grounds that the government has, thus far, ignored the Bar's request to amend the quorum provision in the LPA.

"I have fully supported the move to get the government to reduce the quorum. But no matter how harsh or difficult (this provision), we cannot take the law into our own hands...which is why I would fully support any (move by a) member to seek the court's assistance in making the interpretation.

"And if the court decides that we don't need a quorum, I would fully support it because we would then be armed with a decision of a court of law and not a mere interpretation of our own. If you say that is progress, I would agree."

A Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer claimed that the council's decision would not only take the lawyers two steps backward, but that this has set a dangerous and risk-laden precedent.

"What if the meeting is declared null and void and the council is declared illegal? What happens to all the 12,000 lawyers?" asked the lawyer of 11 years, who declined to be named.

Apart from that, he added, the decision could also create problems with the government, which has been trying haul in the Bar under the jurisdiction of the proposed Law Academy.

"The government must be happy that this is happening. It shows that lawyers are not united and council cannot control its members. The government can always take advantage of this to push through its move to establish the Law Academy... and with Barisan Nasional's two-third majority in Parliament, this can be done easily."

"This would provide the government with a brilliant opportunity to control lawyers, together with law academicians and other non-legal practitioners. Those who supported the move to convene the AGM without a quorum just did not realise that this has set a dangerous precedent."

Possible outcomes

However, Bon countered that the only risk involved was legal action by members who disagree with the interpretation.

"Even if the AGM is nullified, it would only affect the resolutions that were tabled and approved. If that happens, we can always convene again and re-table the resolutions. The appointment of office bearers and council members will not be affected.

"As for legal action, lawyers should not fear litigation, should they? If the court decides that our interpretation is wrong, then so be it."

Chelvarajah who has been practising since 1970, believes that there could be more serious and far reaching consequences.

He said that, should the meeting be nullified, then all decisions made by the council - which can only fulfil its responsibilities after its first AGM - would also be deemed unlawful.

"Let's look at the council's simplest responsibility which is to issue a legal practising certificate to enable lawyers to carry out their functions and duties. If the meeting is declared illegal, then each certificate issued would also be nullified.

"This would cause a lot of inconvenience to members of the public because lawyers represent them in court. So this is not a private matter that affects lawyers alone."

Concurring, the KL-based lawyer said it was "utter nonsense" that the Bar is moving in the right direction.

"The only way for the Bar to do so is to go back to basics. Apart from upholding the law, the council has the duty to protect the interests of its members. Has it been doing this? I think not. If it has, then insurance premiums for lawyers would not be so high!"

He also said the lawyers' apathy towards Bar meetings would change if the council paid more attention to problems that they face - such as unfair tariffs or high fees and insurance premiums.

"Why would anyone want to attend a meeting if their problems are not addressed? If they can't even protect members' interest, would they be able to head the right way? I don't think so."

Criminal lawyer M Manoharan said the council had no choice but to take a bold step to overcome the problems posed by the quorum requirement, although it came with risks.

"We have asked for the government's help, but it has refused. So it is the government that is causing problems for the people. They seem to forget that lawyers are also rakyat," he noted.