The recent spat on the appointment of our ex-CJ as consultant to Skrine & Co has now culminated in a demand from his solicitors (see page 2 of Sunday Mail , 6 June 2003). The demand is for an apology and withdrawal of the article appearing in page 16 of The Star , 5 June 2003.

I have read and re-read the said article and I think there is nothing to apologise or withdraw.

Unbelievable. Psychological warfare. Scare tactic.

Let us just step back for a moment. I do not mean to discuss the propriety (or otherwise) of our ex-CJ's or Skrine's actions.

I also do not question the right for someone previously on the Bench to join the Bar. Those have been exhaustively presented and there is nothing more to add. In fact, there have been other allegations of impropriety, unconnected to Skrine, which have also been brought up but not discussed as publicly as this issue.

I would just question why any law firm, big or small, would want or need a consultant. A consultant is merely a glorified senior legal assistant, is he not? What is this obsession that pervades our culture - of wanting to glorify ourselves with titles or positions which mean nothing or little? Where does it take us, having been conferred 'Datuk' or 'Tan Sri' or 'Tun' or 'consultant'?

The answer lies in consumerism. We have been bought in by the idea of being 'packaged and sold'. Take for example the idea of 'human rights'.

'Human rights' used to be bad words implying anti-establishment, anarchic and only preached by people who have nothing to do. Then there was the advent of the European Convention of Human Rights by the European Union and increasing awareness that human rights issues were in fact everyday issues which affected common people like you and me.

You thus soon saw a sudden boom in human rights movements. Even in Malaysia, Suhakam was grudgingly set up. Recently too UK law firms have established human rights units so that they can sell themselves to their commercial and corporate clients as morally-uplifted firms believing in justice and social issues. This in turn will make their 'package' as a law firm more attractive.

Similarly in Malaysia. I may not be too old but I reckon that titles or positions were originally conferred for the purpose of honouring someone truly great. Today, we have got it the other way around. I have heard of persons purchasing titles and others lobbying those in power for titles and positions to be conferred. For what?

This is because in Malaysia, titles buy you respect, money, business and enhances your image. And why is this so? In Malaysia, it seems that we now have a shallow culture. We do not see beyond our own image or beneath a person's epidermis.

What do consultants do? From what I have heard, consultants collect cheques for the little time spent at office meetings and greeting clients or potential clients. In short, nothing much.

The point is, why does a reputable law firm with numerous established and well-respected senior practitioners need a consultant? Just because the guy is our former CJ?

Yes, it is agreed that there may not be laws or regulations governing this. Yes, the Bar Council may have issued our ex-CJ with a PC. Yes, Skrine may have every legal answer under the sun. But please remember, not everything is about the law and the law is not everything.

There are other unspoken virtues (which unfortunately now, have to be spoken) such as etiquette, decorum and convention. The law only attempts to set and implement standards we should try and follow but it is not the end all and be all. There are many other matters which have not been written in as law. Similarly, if there is bad law, it should be struck off.

For example, there is an unwritten but well-known rule that when a law firm addresses a letter to a judge, you should not address the letter directly to him but to his secretary. There is also an unwritten rule that every letter written to the court should also be copied to the opposing law firm. The basic reasons for this are manifest.

I commend the judges whom I have come across who take these matters seriously and who would chide the firms who fail to follow this. But this is few and far between. Many legal firms I have worked against do not follow this and when asked, some even plea ignorance.

Think about the case A vs B & C which is presided by Judge D. The case is decided against A. Shortly thereafter, Judge D retires and joins C. Put yourself in place of A. How would you feel now?

In law, you may be right. But in 'something else' (call it 'principle', 'convention', 'life' or whatever you want - I am not very good at packaging), you may be wrong. Not easy to put my finger on the problem. But this is my gut - and it has been quite unpalatable so far.