“Are you an aggressive lawyer?”
Every once in a while I get these fetish-type requests. “We want someone strong and aggressive.” “We want a fighter-cock kind of lawyer.” “We want you to attack them.” “We want you to be aggressive with them.” “We want to teach them a lesson.” Those that make such requests are not shy to ask for it at the outset. Sometimes they tell me the need for such a lawyer before they explain what the case is about. For them, a good lawyer is an aggressive one. By aggressive, they mean offensive, difficult and unreasonable. Of course, they have their reasons. Ordinarily, they won’t want such a lawyer. But the thing is, the other side is very bad. They are evil. They will use all kinds of dirty tactics. They will lie, cheat and are very good at manipulating people and situations. So that’s why we need an aggressive lawyer, Encik Fahri. What these prospective clients often want and expect is for their appointed lawyer to be as pure a conduit as possible to convey their hatred or disgust for the other side. Truth is, they don’t want a lawyer. They want a legal avatar, an alter ego with legal ability, a legal hitman, who marshalls and brings to bear the entire might of their experience, education and enlightenment to visit vengeance upon their adversaries (their lawyers too, of course; they should be punished for acting for such immoral people). Having held consultations with the likes of such potential clients, I noticed two phrases that often accompany those fixated on aggression. The first is ‘All we want is justice.’ The second is ‘Money is no object.’ Where the first phrase is concerned, I learned from them it is easy to conflate vengeance with justice. Especially after being hurt, humiliated or deprived of something personally important. It is hard to be reasonable in a state of anger or misery or both. But justice and vengeance are not the same things. Justice is about righting the scale back to balance. Vengeance is about twisting the scale to tilt it decisively in our favour. People who need justice do not ask for justice. They do not use the word justice. They plead for their lives or those of others. They beg for their property not to be taken away. They implore for the return of their child. That is what those in need of justice ask for. They ask for tangible things, they seek restoration. They don’t use fancy words like justice. Where the second phrase is concerned, I learned that people who really are like that are not the sort to say such things. They are more likely to say, please don’t forget to send your bill and send it to so and so. Bill is sent in. Bill is promptly paid without question, without negotiation, without please-lahs, without the wait, without the excuses. For those that declare that at the outset, their true colours sometimes show, soon after, if not immediately after their volunteered declaration. These sorts will ask for particulars of the miscellaneous charge of a hundred ringgit in our bill and verify each page of the photocopying charge. They must try to wring one last round of discount long after the bill was rendered. So we have to be discerning with those before us especially when we come across these three phrases. For me, these are three bright red flags. If all three phrases are said within the same conversation, that would amount to one big blood-red flag. I ignore these flags at my peril. At some point in the consultation, they will ask me the dreaded question, “Are you an aggressive lawyer, Encik Fahri?” At that point, I often wondered what else they would ask if I said yes. Would they ask me, well, how are you an aggressive lawyer? Why do you say you are one? Can you prove that to us? On a scale of aggression of one to ten, where would you rate yourself? Have you done anything aggressive today? Who are your role models for aggression? I wonder because I have never said yes. I have lost out on such prospective clients because I candidly admit I wasn’t what they are looking for. I wasn’t going to immediately take a hostile and unreasonable approach to the opposing counsel simply because my client demanded it. I wasn’t going to file a claim or an application if I didn’t think there was an arguable case for it. I wasn’t going to make allegations I couldn’t prove. Everything we do must have a purpose. Aggression is a poor one. I wasn’t going to persuade these fetishists otherwise. I wasn’t going to convince them an aggressive lawyer is an unethical lawyer. That an aggressive lawyer is an expensive beast. That he is not likelier to accomplish their goals other than making life difficult for everybody including himself. It’s not just because I feel that way and think it is a waste of time, effort, emotion and money. More importantly, the aggression and the maneuvers that flow from that are at odds with what is demanded of us by our ethical code in the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (LPR78). The conduct of an advocate and solicitor before the Court and in relation to other advocates and solicitors shall be characterised by candour, courtesy and fairness. Rule 18 LPR78 This rule provides that we have to be civilized and respectful in our dealings with opposing lawyers, not just the courts. The quality of the candour, courtesy and fairness that lawyers are expected to give to and receive from each other is the same as the type a lawyer gives to the court – very high quality. These qualities enable disputes to be resolved reasonably, fairly, sensibly and economically. This is difficult to do when parties are caught up with aggression and are busy trying to beat each other over the head about petty matters. So we as
