Paul Chong Leung : “The role of a barrister is not to defend a client but to present the case to the Court”

Paul Chong Leung is a former Attorney General and was Member of Parliament for more than two decades. He also served as Ambassador of Mauritius in Peking. He is today a keen observer of public affairs and from time to time comments on what is happening in our Republic. News on Sunday asked him about his views on lawyers being questioned on their integrity at the Lam Shang Leen Drug Commission.

Is the appearance of lawyers before the Lam Shang Leen Commission not bringing prejudice to the legal profession?
What follows is not said with the intention to defend barristers or anybody, far from it. The barristers are qualified or big enough to defend themselves. In any trade or profession, there are those who are honest and conscientious, and there are those who are not and who are a disgrace to their trade or profession. Having said this there is an urgent need for us to put the dots on the 'I's and see if we can find our way in this most unhealthy situation. There is a general line of thought or body of opinion which has developed recently following the sweeping wave of scandals which has come to light even before the advent of the Commission of Enquiry on Drugs, involving barristers, that the barristers are a despicable lot, bent on making money at all cost by flying to the defense of that other despicable lot of drug dealers, by hook or more generally by crook, some people are tempted to say.

But the role of the barrister is to defend his client, whoever he may be?
It is important to underline and clarify that the role of the barrister is not, as is generally and widely believed to be, to defend his client whoever he may be. His role is not to defend an accused or suspect. It is to present the case or put the version of the story of his client to the court. This is a totally different proposition altogether from popular belief.  With that kind of popular belief prevailing, it is not to be wondered that the reputation of the profession as a whole or the consideration of the barrister and of the judiciary were bound to be adversely affected. No longer can we hear that a barrister or legal professional is a stalwart of democracy , fair-play or pillar of freedom of any sort, but only a money making machine or a "Massine a sous in a casino"- A far cry from being the defender of the poor and helpless.

Is there any explanation for the regular visits of barristers on the prison’s premises, something never heard of before?
True it is that we have learnt that a number of barristers have been specially interested in drug dealers or barons whether local ones or coming from abroad, meeting them by droves at the prisons, although most of them were already convicted inmates in no need of any legal advice for any prospective or coming trial. The evidence on the real intention of the barristers cannot be other than to form part of the organisation of these drug tycoons or barons and cashing in on the immense fortunes amassed by these people. Some of these visits if not all of them were unsolicited ones! What are the reasons that have prompted or contributed to this situation is a legitimate question and one for which answers have to be found urgently by the profession as a body itself before the rot sets in and overwhelms it for good!

Why this sudden change in the profession?
There are more than 700 barristers on the roll at the present time and there are every year an intake of some 50 or more new entrants. The majority in the profession are young. Cut throat competition is bound to increase, bringing in new unwelcome and unwanted pressures to prevail. Having been absent from the country for some nine years , on my return I found that there has been some consequential changes both at the level of the practitioners and that of the people seeking legal services. Gone are the days when you could provide the services and you get paid even if most of the time, it is after a case is over. Those you have helped and provided assistance to in whatever way possible like charging less than the prevailing rate or on a commission basis without their having to fork out a single rupee are the most likely to default after being the most demanding.

For those barristers dealing with the drug people, dealers and traffickers notably and according to what is presently being revealed, the question of the amount of their fees is not on the agenda. There is no limit regarding the fees being charged or voluntarily offered by the prospective trafficker/ client and can run into six digits if not seven. This is where the saying that money corrupts shows its application in a most blatant way. What is more unacceptable, revolting and criminal is that those involved in this sort of highly reprehensible conduct is that they are senior members of the Bar with more than 20 years practice and some with more than 30 years have used young colleagues of theirs to do the donkey and dirty work on their behalf, thus driving those youngsters, the Juniors, on the road, not to nowhere, but to perdition. All that has been elaborated above are not mere allegations as the Prime Minister has alleged. These allegations are not mere allegations but allegations backed by documentary official documents like the Barristers visit Book kept at the prisons.

What are the possibilities to give back the lost prestige to the ‘Men in Black’?
What has been told above is in short the issues, problems and consequences to be attended to urgently and solutions devised and put into application without delay by the profession if it wants to stay credible and regain its past glory. It is up to the profession itself to take the bull by the horn and not rely on the authorities to make any move, because they won't lift any little finger, as some people in their own midst are up to their neck involved in this sordid affair, according to what has been publicly revealed with hardly any credible response, let alone firm denial.