This document is a newsletter from the law firm Jayadeep Hari & Jamil Advocates and Solicitors. It provides information on the firm's offices and contact details. The newsletter also includes articles on legal topics such as group insurance policies, rear-end collisions, and the liability of company directors. It discusses events held by the firm such as a family day outing and a movie day with orphans. The editor's message introduces new staff and discusses the firm's expanded scope of services.

1. LEGAL CAULDRON
Jayadeep Hari & Jamil
Advocates and Solicitors
PETALING JAYA
Unit 612, 6th Floor,
Menara Mutiara Majestic,
No. 15, Jalan Othman,
46000 PJ, Selangor.
T: 03-7784 7255
F: 03-7781 7255
KOTA BHARU 1
2713, 1st Floor, Section 22,
Batu 2, Jalan Kuala Krai,
15050 Kota Bharu,
Kelantan.
T: 09-741 2050
F: 09-741 2051
KOTA BHARU 2
Tingkat 2, Lot 11,
Bangunan Tabung Haji,
Kompleks Niaga, Jalan Dato Pati,
15000 Kota Bharu, Kelantan.
T: 09-747 7782
F: 09-747 4733
Issue no. 2
of 2012
LEGAL CAULDRON Issue No 2 of 2012
MELAKA
No.54-1, Jalan TU 2,
Taman Tasik Utama,
75450 Ayer Keroh,
Melaka.
T: 06-234 7330
F: 06-234 4800
In this issue:
Our offices:
No KDN: PP 15706/02/2013(032198)
KUALA LUMPUR
Suite 2.03 (2nd Floor)
Block A, No 45, Medan Setia Satu,
Plaza Damansara, Bukit Damansara,
50490 Kuala Lumpur.
T: 03-2096 1478 | F: 03-2096 1480
www.jhj.com.my
Group Insurance Policy -
Sue the insurer? Think again.
Rear End Collision -
Is it always entirely your fault?
Company Directors -
Can members sue them?
360 Student Attachment Programme - Student reviews
JHJ Family Day -
Flying Fox & Jungle Gym
JHJ & Great Eastern collaboration on the CRC.
JHJ Charity Mission -
Madagascar 3 Movie Day with Orphans
EDITORS:
Andrew Chee
Adeline Chin
CONTRIBUTORS:
Eunice H.S. Ong
Barvina Punnusamy
Shobana Padmanathan

2. MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR:
Welcome to the second edition of the Legal Cauldron for the year 2012. It seemed not too long ago that the year began but half a year has nevertheless gone by. We hope the year has been as exciting, hectic and fun for you has it has been for JHJ. And now, we bring you once more our legal writings from our team of lawyers and as always, we do our best to keep our clients abreast with the latest and pertinent legal and social issues. We hope you enjoy reading our newsletter as much as we enjoyed writing them.
In our last edition, we mentioned that our headquarters in Bukit Damansara had expanded and with the expansion, we also now have new colleagues (and friends) to add to the JHJ family. We would like to introduce to you:
Siti Khadijah (Lawyer – CR Department)
Suthes (Lawyer – CR Department)
Manisah (Lawyer – Conveyancing Department)
Adeline (Manager – Knowledge Department)
Saravanan (Secretary – CR Department)
Didie (Secretary – Conveyancing Department)
Aisyah (Receptionist)
We are very glad to have such capable yet affable personalities onboard and look forward, not just to work together but to have fun together especially in our upcoming office trip!
On that note, please visit our website (www.jhj.com.my) and see our updated Nature of Practice and Industry Experience, which has expanded since our last edition to include various other new areas that we have now ventured into. We have, among other areas, extended our scope of services, such as into the mining industry. We would like to thank our clients who have had the faith and confidence to bring to us new matters in new areas that allowed us to expand our knowledge. We are glad to say that we managed, guided always by our We Care philosophy and core values, to bring all matters in new areas to very satisfactory conclusions.
Outside the office however, JHJ was invited by Great Eastern Life Assurance to collaborate on a CRC Event (Convention of the Rights of the Child) on 31st March this year. We jumped at the opportunity and Barvina, who has always been a passionate Human and Child Rights advocate, spoke on behalf of JHJ to a large crowd of secondary school students of their rights in this country. In addition to that, Mr Jayananda Rao, long time friend of Jayadeep and Hari and a criminal lawyer of 19 years, spoke also at the event and informed the children of their rights in relation to the Criminal Justice System. It was amazing that the children were highly entertained, yet thoroughly informed, by his explanation and personal accounts of juvenile cases he has handled. Please see photos of the event on page 6.
And further to do with children, JHJ had a second event relating to children. During our Annual Charity Event on 16th June, we brought orphaned children from Praise
Emmanuel Children‟s Home, Rumah Kebajikan Darul Kifayah, and Persatuan Kebajikan Teratak Shifa to watch Madagascar 3: Europe‟s Most Wanted at Cathay Cineplex e@Curve (formerly Cineleisure Damansara). Perhaps with the impending marriages of some of our JHJ Family members, children are a subject currently close to home. We all had a riot watching the movie. We have to say that the children were very well-behaved and we are glad to have spent time and brought some excitement to their Saturday. Please see photos of the event on page 8.
It seems we have had a very family-oriented first half and coincidentally, JHJ also had its Family Day in 7th March albeit a physically-challenging one. The JHJ Family and their own real family members and friends went to Skytrex Adventure in Bukit Cahaya Seri Alam to undertake the “Big Thrill” circuit involving tightropes, climbing rope ladders and flying fox challenges. It was no mean feat but we all had our safety harness and clips on at all times and had a good and energetic outing. Please see photos of the event on page 4
And finally, our Attachment Students have successfully finished our JHJ 360o Student Programme and are facing the CLP exams soon. We bid them all the best and we‟re sure they will do well. In fact, we have been very pleased with their performance that we have offered them all positions for pupillage upon successful completion of their exams. We now look forward to a second batch of Attachment Students which we expect to be even more successful given that we have also learnt from our own experiences in this Programme and have tweaked it further to help make the Students‟ learning smoother and more effective. Anyone interested in our Programme may email kd@jhj.com.my to apply.
Now without further ado, please enjoy the latest edition of the Cauldron with our compliments.
EDITOR
Andrew Chee
Knowledge Dept
andrewchee@jhj.com.my
Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 2

3. When you are employed with a company, more often than not, you will enjoy the benefit of insurance hospitalisation coverage. This is where your employment contract or employment handbook will say something like this:-
“Hospitalisation benefits are available to you as an employee through our group medical insurance.”
Alternatively, you could have taken a group accident policy when you apply for membership of say a Holiday Members Club or a Turf Club for that matter.
Then, something unfortunate happens, you were admitted into a hospital and require a surgical procedure to be done or you suffer a prolapsed disc (touch wood), you make a claim against the insurance company and your claim gets… rejected.
The usual drill takes place, you get angry and you make a lot of noise, but to no avail. The claim officers still refuse to process your claim. Then you get free coffee-shop legal advice which prompts you to sue the insurance company in Court.
You may have been told that you will win the case, get your claim processed and get the money insured. You may think that you have insurance coverage, pursuant to your employment contract or your membership card, there is absolutely no reason that you should fail in your claim. Think again.
Now, let us put things in perspective. Say we use the first example of your benefit as an employee of enjoying hospitalisation benefits; you make a claim against the insurance company for hospitalisation expenses, which you had incurred for treating your prolapsed disc condition.
What we should first realise is that although the policy taken by your employer is for your benefit, generally you are not the owner of the policy as you are not named in the policy. You do not pay any form of contributions to the insurance company, your employer does. And generally, until and unless a statute is passed to protect the third parties to a contract in Malaysia, you will not be able to succeed in the suit against the insurance company. This is what we lawyers like to call,
privity of contract, which is simply defined as you will have no right to the contract, if you are not part of it. This is unless the group accident policy names specifically the beneficiaries, and that the beneficiaries may on their own accord file a claim with the insurance company.
However, if the group accident policy merely has the owner of the policy being your employer, then the law of privity will apply.
If I may cite an example in a reported case, in Anuar bin Ismail v Tan Sri Tan Chin Tuan & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 155, a professional jockey was required to contribute 2% of his riding fees and prize money to the Malayan Racing Association Fund and part of this money was used to pay for the group insurance policy. He suffered injuries and was unable to return to professional competitive horse riding on 4 December 1987 and made a claim against the insurer.
Now, as we have expected, the court dismissed his claim against the insurer on the ground that he was not a party to the contract. The court had stated that the absolute owner of the policy was the association and only the association could claim under it and no one else.
But before you hit panic button and conclude that you have no right to claim from the insurance company of the sum you were insured on, you should know that all is not lost. What this means is that your employer being the owner of the policy and also pursuant to your contract of employment, it is the duty of your employer to make that claim with the insurers and collect the sum insured on trust for you.
In the case of Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v Mohamed Salleh [2000] 2 CLJ 13 the court held as follows:-
“…under the ordinary principles that govern the law of trusts, any employee would be able to lodge a claim, as a beneficiary of the policy against MNI. This would cause great difficulties to the insurer because it will then be faced with a multitude of claims… the person such as the respondent [the employee] cannot claim anything under the policy from MNI directly. However, the appellant [employer] is entitled to receive any benefit due to the respondent. Once received it will hold monies as trustee for the respondent. This then is what a group insurance policy is about.” [emphasis my own]
Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 3
GROUP INSURANCE POLICY
- Sue the Insurer? Think Again.
By Eunice H.S. Ong
“...generally you are not the owner of the of the policy...”

4. To translate that quote in simple terms, it means that the right/duty to claim from the insurer lies with your employer, who will collect/receive the money on trust for you and make the necessary payment to you.
So no, you cannot claim against the insurer for a group accident/hospitalisation policy if you are not specifically named in the policy and if it is not stated that you have a right to make that claim, but you can most certainly claim against your employer or whoever the owner of the policy will be. And if your employer does not take any action for the insured sum to be paid to you, your cause of action will be against your employer, pursuant to the employment contract that you have signed with your employer. This means that although you do not have a cause of action against the insurance company, you do certainly have a cause of action against your employer pursuant to the employment contract.
So, what you do when you need to claim for hospitalisation expenses is to notify your employer, and leave the administration in their good hands.
By Eunice H.S. Ong
eunice@jhj.com.my
Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 4
“Your cause of action will be against your employer.”
Interesting Cases:
Sanmarkan a/l Ganapathy & Anor (as administrators of the estate of Saradhamani a/p Doraisamy Gopal, the deceased) v Dato' Dr V Thuraisingham & Ors [2012] 3 MLJ 817:
Doctors would be liable for negligence if there was sufficient equipment, knowledge, skill and experience to diagnose the ailment but yet failed to further investigate matters.
Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2011] 6 AMR 832:
An employee’s dismissal from his job for khalwat is justified because it is a recognised gross misconduct and the employer’s reputation is to be given priority.
EVENTS
JHJ team conquers Skytrex on Family
The JHJ team went beyond office boundaries and ventured into the terrains of Skytrex for some good old exercise, fresh air and lush greenery in Bukit Cahaya, Shah Alam to celebrate our annual Family Day. High spirits and the many outdoor facilities available ensured some healthy competition and teamwork amongst us. Flying Fox had our hearts pumping, Hanging Bridge had our heads spinning; but the picnic after made up for all the energy consumption. It was a revitalising Family Day indeed! We all went home drenched in sweat with a bucket load of cheer.

5. REAR END COLLISION
- Is it always entirely your fault?
By Barvina Punnusamy
Imagine driving on the road while listening to your favourite music, you are just following behind a vehicle when suddenly the vehicle in front stops and you collide with the vehicle. You are in shock, confused even. The driver comes out, screams at you that it is your fault. But, how could that be? Why should you be blamed for the collision when it was the driver who suddenly stopped without any signal or indication? However the driver insists that you should be blamed since you had collided into the rear end of the vehicle. People start surrounding your vehicle and they also say that it is your fault as the driver travelling behind. In order to avoid any arguments and dispute with the other driver, you agree to pay for damages just to be able to drive away from the scene of the collision. But, is it really entirely your fault?
There seems to be an unwritten rule that if you collide with a vehicle in front of you, it is always your fault regardless of the circumstances leading to the collision. Surely, this is wrong because there could be other occasions that result in a rear end collision like when a driver suddenly changes lane and encroaches into your lane. The notion involving rear end collision comes from rule 22 of the Highway Code which stipulates that the following driver should allow at least one car‟s length between his car and the vehicle in front for every ten miles an hour of its speed.
Although you may have collided with a vehicle on the rear but it does not necessarily mean that you are to be entirely blamed for the collision based on the case of Leng Yang Sua & Anor v Ng Yen Ken & Anor [1986] CLJ (Rep) 448 which held that rear vehicle collisions should be decided on their own facts since there has been no judicial consistency. The Court in Abdullah Karim v Ahmad Abdullah & Anor [1991] 2 CLJ (Rep) 238 decided that the driver in front who had failed to keep a proper lookout before he stopped the bus to pick up the would-be passenger was found 25% liable for the collision. The driver following behind was held 75% liable as he had failed to carry out his duty to keep a safe distance while following behind the bus.
This means that you may not be entirely at fault
for the collision as the other driver has a duty to anticipate possible presence of others on the road and have a good lookout as held in Chai Phin Chong & Anor v Zainal Abidin Mohd Salleh & Anor [1998] 4 CLJ 833. In this case, the Court decided that since the other driver had suddenly stopped his vehicle without giving any indication, he should be blamed for the collision as well. Although you should have maintained a safe distance with the vehicle in front of you, this does not mean that the other driver had not contributed to the collision through his negligence.
In fact there are cases where the courts have found that the driver travelling in front to be entirely at fault for a rear end collision. For example, the Court in Kamaruddin Mohd Nor & Anor v Soon Soo Moe & Anor [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 301 held that the driver of a lorry swinging from left to right in order to execute a U-turn and colliding with a motorcyclist coming from the rear was held totally to blame.
This denotes that if the circumstances leading to the collision shows negligence on the part of the driver travelling in the front vehicle, then as the driver travelling behind, you will not be held entirely at fault.
Therefore, you should not have paid the damages in full to the other driver because you were not entirely at fault since there may be contributory negligence from the other driver. As a driver following behind a vehicle, it is undeniable that you have a duty to maintain a safe distance with the vehicle travelling in front of you. But, in the event of a rear end collision, it does not mean that you are entirely at fault regardless of the circumstances leading to the collision as demonstrated in the above cases.
So, the next time you are involved in a rear end collision, identify whether there was negligence on the part of the driver travelling in the vehicle in front and despite what others might say, it is not always entirely your fault if you collide with a vehicle on the rear end.
By Barvina Punnusamy
barvina@jhj.com.my
Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 5
“Why should you be blamed for the collision when it was the driver who sudenly stopped without any signal or indication?”
“You may not be entirely at fault for the collision.”

6. Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 6
EVENTS
A Child‟s Prerogative: Insight to Your Legal Rights‟ Forum
On 17 February 1995, Malaysia granted accession to the United Nations Treaty on Human Rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child. Echoing the accession and the need for a more well informed society on children‟s rights, Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia) Berhad have in collaboration with JHJ, UNICEF Malaysia, Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia and Persatuan Siswazah Wanita Malaysia undertook the decision to organize this forum on the 31st of March 2012. Present were experienced guest speakers from participating organizations, students from various schools and other attendees who are keen in learning more about children‟s rights. Here, we embarked on an insightful journey in the quest to secure a better brighter future for our younger generation.
Voice Out - Mr. Jayananda Rao interviewing a student during the Q&A session
Beginning of „A Child‟s Prerogative - Insight to your Legal Rights‟ Forum‟ by Great Eastern
Ms. Barvina speaking on behalf of JHJ to a crowd of secondary school students on their rights
Active participation of attendees during an interactive session with the speakers
Students listening attentively as Mr. Rao elaborates his viewpoints on the subject matter
The Forum helps provoke thoughts amongst attendees by means of intellectual games

7. COMPANY DIRECTORS
- Can members sue them?
By Shobana Padmanathan
Many of us are members of a company. As members, we entrust the responsibility of the company‟s affairs being conducted to our best interest in the hands of the company‟s directors. For efficient and clear administration, a company‟s Articles outlines the governing rules, duties and functions of the directors in order to protect the company and its members from abuse of powers and conflict of interests. But what happens when things get out of control? What can the members do to save themselves from being oppressed by these directors who are inevitably the the mind and will of the company? But before all that, who is a member?
There is a difference between a member and a shareholder. A person is called a member of the company if his name is included in the company‟s register. He remains a member so long as his name is not removed from the company‟s register. However, a shareholder is a person who carries the ordinary shares of that particular company. The shareholder will become a member if his name is included in the company‟s register. Apart from that, subscribers of the company‟s Memorandum of Association will by default be deemed the original members of the company.
So again, how do we control the “controllers of the company” when they have been given administrative powers? Fortunately, the law have safeguarded our interest in various ways so as to provide us the rights to bring an action against oppressive directors. The next question is, what is “oppressive”? Any conduct of disregard, injustice, discrimination and prejudice done towards the company or its members is considered to be oppressive. This includes, among others, denial of access to information, excessive payment of director‟s remuneration, misuse of company‟s funds or assets, failure to execute an action, unfair share allotment, performance of conducts damaging to the company and any other breach of director‟s duties.
The governing law for this area is no other than the Companies Act of Malaysia 1965 („the Act‟) enacted by Parliament. The Act provides effective procedures enabling a company‟s members to obtain remedies in case of oppression. Members may also seek to bring an action against a director for breach of fiduciary duties under the common law.
The courts have customarily been reluctant to interfere with corporate decisions unless there is a clear case justifying such an interference. This is so to avoid vexatious or baseless claims brought up by minority shareholders against the directors of a company. This is known as the internal management rule founded in the English case of Foss vs. Harbottle.
The setback of this rule is that it deprives the minority from having an avenue for their complaints to be heard. To solve this problem, certain exceptions were made, which include allowing members to bring a personal action against a director if the act complained of constitutes fraud on the minority.
Moving on, we will look at what the Act has to offer for the members of a company. Section 181 of the Act provides a list of reasons and remedies for instances of oppression. The gist of this section is that if there has been an oppression of the company‟s members; i.e. the members‟ interests being starkly disregarded, unfairly discriminated or prejudiced, the law allows them to bring an action in court to end or to remedy the act complained of. Thereafter, the court will prohibit or cancel the act, regulate the future affairs of the company, put the minority member‟s shares up for sale to other members of the company, or in worst case scenario, order that the company be wound up.
The question to be decided by the court is whether the reasonable or legitimate expectations of a member have been breached. To cite some precedents, the case of Chiew Sze Sun v Cast Iron Products Sdn Bhd illustrates that when poor financial reporting led to minority shareholders‟ interests being side-lined amounted to oppression. In Ng Chee Keong v Ng Teong Kiat Highlands Plantation Ltd, the company‟s assets consisted of tea plantations. As the company have neglected the plantation, the state government indicated that the property will be forfeited. The court held that there was oppression because the directors had conducted the affairs of the company in disregard of its members‟ interest. Another important section is sections 218 (1)(f) and 218 (1)(i). These sections provide for the situation where a company may be wound up. It is the intention of Parliament that if the directors have acted in their own interests and not the interest of its members in an unjust and prejudicial manner, the Court will wind up the company if they find it “just and equitable” to do so. “Just and equitable” simply means fairness in justice by means of reason and conscience. Examples of situations that have been accepted as valid for winding up on “just and equitable” grounds include instances when the purpose of the company could not be achieved, when the management is deadlocked or is guilty of serious
Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 7
“A person is called the member of a company if his name is included in the register of a company.”

8. irregularities, and if there is a breakdown of mutual trust within the management of the company.
The members may also seek to remove a director who is oppressive under section 128 of the Act and Article 69 of the Articles of Association. Requirements under the law for a resolution of removal to be passed is firstly, for members to give notice of such resolution not less than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the proposed meeting, and secondly to pass an ordinary resolution by ways of a simple majority.
A remedy also available under the common law is the members‟ derivative action. Simply put, it allows a member to bring an action against the director on behalf of the company. If the derivative action is successful and the director is ordered by the company to pay compensation, the compensation is paid to the company and not to the individual member. This is because it is the company which has a right to bring the legal action and not the individual member.
In conclusion, although the directors of a company are conferred certain powers to ensure the smooth-running and effective functioning of a company, the law have developed various remedies to protect the interests of the company and its members should the directors act unfairly and/or oppressively.
By Shobana Padmanathan
shobana@jhj.com.my
Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 8
“The question to be decided by the court is whether the reasonable or legitimate expectations of a member have been breached.”
EVENTS
Madagascar III - Movie Day with Orphans
Popcorns, Fruit Juices & Lunch Boxes after. Lets Move It!
Thirst Quenchers! Saravanan handing out bottles of fruit juice to the children before the movie starts
Long Queue
Boys from Rumah Anak Yatim Darul Kifayah lining up for their lunch boxes after an hour of giggles

9. Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 9
360o
JHJ 360°
STUDENT
ATTACHMENT
PROGRAMME
FEATURE ARTICLE
It has been six months since I first started the JHJ 360° attachment program in Jayadeep Hari and Jamil. Never once in my entire experience have I regretted the decision of joining the program. Being involved in four different departments, I have had the chance to experience a wide scope of legal matters from court documents, agreements, research and court work. This is due to the wide scope of tasks ranging from legal work to other types of tasks. The program through the tasks designed gives a slight glimpse into the workings of a law firm from the managerial standpoint to the synchronisation of work between the lawyers and also the chambering students apart from legal works.
Being given the opportunity to follow the lawyers to court and meeting clients was a real eye opener. For me, court litigation had been heavily influenced by movies and television. Sitting in a court room for the first time was a magnificent experience and it gave me a firsthand knowledge to properly understand what I would be embarking upon in the future. Court ethics and advocacy played such a huge part in the litigation process. It was also crucial to realise the role that the clients played in the litigation process and the responsibilities we have accepted in handling their case. The choices we make and the litigation process we go through would greatly affect our clients long after we have forgotten about it.
One of the task which made me realise to never ignore the small things and take it for granted was the despatch task. Having to run around everywhere was not something small. Waiting in line for hours merely to submit a document in court or to get approval by one of the government bodies is not a luxury a chambering student or a lawyer has. Without the despatch, the law firm would not be able to run smoothly and maybe even come to a standstill with everyone running from one place to another.
The best thing about the firm was the people inside. The chambering students, the clerks and the lawyers have all been a great help and have never turned me down. Some even took time out of their busy schedule to explain some of the basics for the task that I were to handle. Even if some tasks were fictional, they took the greatest effort to explain what needed to be done and what are the desired results. Overall, the six months I spent in JHJ was a pleasant and enjoyable one due to the people and the working culture. JHJ really lives up to their motto “We Care”.
Vijayandran
LLB University of London External Programme 2011
I have always wanted to know how a law firm actually functions and how lawyers actually do their job. Through this JHJ 360° programme, I managed to have a glimpse at how it all works. Through the programme, I understood that being a lawyer isn‟t easy at all. They are here to get the job done. You are expected to meet clients‟ needs and protect their interests while considering the case from the opposing party‟s angle and all the other possible problems that might arise under foreseeable circumstances. Therefore it is sometimes very difficult to strike a balance between solving the problem and benefiting your clients because you cannot be disregarding the other party‟s interests as well.
[to be continued on the next page…]
Fong Kai Mun
LLB University of London External Programme 2011
Months have passed and the three young lads who joined the JHJ family late last year have completed their student attachment programme. We have witnessed their dedication and dilligence throughout the duration of the programme and are proud of their accomplishments. Here are their afterthoughts on JHJ‟s 360° Student Attachment Programme.

10. Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 10
As a lawyer you have to deal with all sorts of people; people from different cultures and backgrounds. You are bound to meet difficulties in dealing with these people. It becomes even more difficult when there are miscommunications and human errors. Therefore in order to be a lawyer, you would not only need to be smart but you also have to be resourceful and be able to communicate well with the people that you work with, to be persuasive.
Time appears to be never enough for a busy lawyer. It is known that lawyers have to work long hours and I have seen lawyers working extra hours just to get the job done. It seems that in order to be a successful lawyer you would also need to manage your time well.
It is getting increasingly difficult to survive in this competitive industry, the „cut-throat industry‟ as some would call it. In order to thrive, lawyers have to live up to the standards of a true professional by providing better services to the clients. If you are really good at what you do, you would not need to hunt for jobs anymore. Opportunities come to you. I was told that the only thing a lawyer can truly rely on is his/her knowledge and understanding of the law. Afterall, this is the tool of the trade.
Through this programme, I have also come to an understanding that ethics are very important to a lawyer. There are legal practitioners committing criminal breach of trusts and absconding with the clients‟ money. But where is the honour of being a professional if we do not follow the code of conduct? Hopefully I would be able to carry myself well enough in the future so as not to bring shame to the profession.
What do I have to say about this programme? The JHJ 360° programme is really practical and truly beneficial to a law student such as myself. I would not have been able to learn as much as I did here if I were to be anywhere else. I am proud to be an attachment student under the JHJ 360° Programme. I hope that JHJ will continue providing this great opportunity to other students in the future in order for them to experience what we have experienced. Last but not least, I just want to say: “Thank You JHJ”.
For the past four months, it has been a great pleasure for me to participate in JHJ‟s 360° Student Attachment Programme. My JHJ experience kickstarted when I received the Book Prize Award sponsored by JHJ for LLB Part 2 Finals, which enabled me to partake in this 360° Student Attachment Programme.
Prior to joining the firm, I have been informed by JHJ‟s Head of Knowledge Department and the two other Student Attachment Programme participants about the invaluable experiences one can get from this programme. Hence, I joined the program with great anticipation, hoping to gain appraisable skills and experience through the course of this programme. Expectantly, this programme have lived up to, if not went beyond my intents.
The biggest impact this Attachment Program have on me perhaps is that it gave me the opportunity to get to know the legal field better. By joining the Programme, I was exposed not just to all the legal work which I couldn‟t have experienced during the course of my Law Degree or CLP study, but also to the JHJ team which is vastly experienced in the legal field. By performing legal works and mingling with the JHJ team, I have gotten to know the legal field from a different perspective. Hence for me, the Attachment Program is the first step I have taken in the effort to get to know the real legal world and I do think it‟s a really good start.
Through the programme, I was given the opportunity to deal with both fictional and real legal problems. They have proved to be challenging, but this opportunity undoubtedly made a great experience. The tasks provided in the Attachment Program centered on four main areas of the legal practice, namely the Corporate, Conflict Resolution, Conveyancing and Knowledge Department. Thus by experiencing a wide variation of legal works, I grew tremendously and was challenged by new tasks on a daily basis.
Learning skills and gaining experience during the course of this program was never a difficult task. This was due to the overwhelming support by all of the JHJ staff ranging from chambering students to the partners. Advice and tips to good legal practice had always been taught to us without hesitation by the JHJ team.
Furthermore, I was not only exposed to legal aspects through this program, but also to the management, marketing, and many other facets of the legal field. This exposure has further broadened my view and mindset besides making me realize the importance of possessing knowledge outside the realm of legal practice. I truly believe that the knowledge in other fields will prove to be useful and of importance in the future.
Ng Chin Han
LLB University of London External Programme 2011

11. Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 11
JHJ Outside Work

12. Kuala Lumpur . Petaling Jaya . Kota Bharu . Melaka
This is a publication produced by the JHJ Knowledge Department. For any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us: T: 03-2096 1478 | F: 03-2096 1480 | E: kd@jhj.com.my | W: www.jhj.com.my
Publisher: Messrs Jayadeep Hari & Jamil, Suite 2.03 (2nd Floor), Block A, Plaza Damansara, Bukit Damansara, 50490 KL.
Printers: Pressworks Enterprise, No 20, Jalan Usaha Satu 25/2A, 40400 Shah Alam.