I've been following the recent discourse on the Bar Council’s proposed remuneration for pupil allowances, and while I understand the concerns raised—particularly for small-town law firms—I worry that the policy may have unintended consequences that deepen existing inequalities in the profession.
The Bar Council’s apprehension about smaller firms discontinuing pupillage due to financial constraints is valid. In rural or less affluent areas, economics may indeed force firms to stop taking in pupils altogether. While I find it difficult to believe that Klang Valley firms would pay below minimum wage, the proposed cap risks normalizing stagnation—or even regression—in pupil allowances.
My greater concern, however, is the impact on law graduates from smaller towns. Many, lacking opportunities locally, are already compelled to relocate to urban centers like the Klang Valley to complete their chambering. But with soaring living costs—rent, transportation, professional attire, and, yes, even basic necessities like food—how can they afford it? A meager allowance that barely covers subsistence will only push them further into financial precarity.
This policy, if implemented as is, risks exacerbating the stark class divide in the legal profession. The barriers start early: the universities we attend, the networks we access, and the financial burdens of qualifying—clothing, footwear (which, for pupils constantly on their feet, must be both presentable and durable), transportation, and the inability to take on side jobs due to exhausting work hours—all reinforce systemic inequities. Over time, we may see fewer law graduates from lower-income backgrounds entering the Bar, narrowing the diversity of our profession. That would be truly tragic.
I believe the current proposal warrants a reset and a deep and hard rethink, particularly in setting minimum allowances for Klang Valley firms, where living costs are significantly higher - to ensure that graduates would be able to live (albeit in poverty) with the allowances they are paid.
More importantly, we must explore structural solutions to support disadvantaged pupils.
While I’m not an expert in this area and I haven’t delved deeply into policy alternatives, one approach could be for the Malaysian Bar to establish a hardship grant or financial aid scheme—similar to those in other jurisdictions—to ensure that no deserving candidate is barred from the profession due to financial hardship.
The legal profession should be accessible to talent, not just privilege. If we value a diverse and inclusive Bar, it’s time to invest in its future.
Comments