THE CHRONICLES OF A CAPITALIST LAWYER

RANDOM THOUGHTS OF A CAPITALIST LAWYER ON LAW, ECONOMICS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE

Showing posts with label Lawyering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyering. Show all posts
  • Kesetaraan Gender dan Industri Hukum

    Pengumuman pengangkatan 2 Senior Partner baru di UMBRA, Melati Siregar dan Poppy Cut Rahmasuci, merupakan momen yang tepat untuk mengangkat kembali tema kesetaraan gender, khususnya dalam industri hukum. Bagi pembaca blog ini dan khususnya yang sudah kenal saya lumayan lama, harusnya tahu posisi saya soal kesetaraan gender: saya menolak segala bentuk pengaturan soal pembagian peran pria dan wanita selain dari apa yang masing-masing mereka kehendaki sendiri secara sadar dan berdasarkan pengetahuan yang cukup. Artikel lama saya soal ini bisa dibaca misalnya di: Kesetaraan Gender dan Kebebasan Memilih Dalam Hidup serta Absurdnya Ide Pengurangan Jam Kerja Wanita

    Posisi saya di atas belum berubah sama sekali, dan karena kebetulan sekarang saya sudah memiliki institusi sendiri, saya bisa lebih bebas mengimplementasikan visi misi tersebut. Sejak dahulu kala, industri hukum memang tidak terkenal sebagai industri yang ramah bagi perempuan. Menariknya, jika diperbandingkan, Indonesia mungkin justru terhitung lebih progresif dibandingkan dengan dedengkot industri hukum modern berskala besar di Amerika Serikat mengingat di Amerika, perempuan tidak diperkenankan masuk ke sekolah hukum apalagi berpraktek hukum setidaknya sampai dengan akhir abad ke-19/awal abad ke 20 dan efeknya sedikit banyak masih terasa hingga kini, partisipasi perempuan di bidang hukum masih jauh lebih rendah dibandingkan dengan partisipasi lelaki.

    Jam kerja kantor hukum yang brutal ditambah masih adanya stigma pembagian peranan wanita dan pria baik secara domestik maupun bisnis dalam budaya, agama, dan negara tertentu memang sangat menyulitkan posisi perempuan untuk berkarir sebagai pengacara/advokat. Umumnya, analisis standar (kalau bisa dikategorikan sebagai analisis) dalam mempertimbangkan apakah suatu kantor hukum akan mempekerjakan pengacara perempuan adalah: berapa lama kira-kira ia akan bekerja secara efektif dalam kantor? Apakah ia sudah memiliki pasangan? Apakah ia akan memiliki anak? Kekhawatiran utamanya adalah apabila kantor sudah berinvestasi sedemikian rupa dengan pengacara perempuan tersebut namun di tengah jalan tiba-tiba ia memutuskan berhenti bekerja karena alasan menikah, memiliki anak dan selanjutnya harus fokus mengurusi keluarga. Bagi industri yang sangat mengandalkan kualitas pribadi dari masing-masing talentanya, kehilangan talenta yang bermutu karena urusan seperti ini tentu akan sangat menyakitkan dan kontra produktif.        

    UMBRA sendiri tidak menerapkan kebijakan khusus "pro perempuan" semisal affirmative action. Jadi fakta bahwa saat ini pengacara perempuan mewakili 64% dari total 50 lawyer di UMBRA dan 37,5% di level Senior Partner bukan hasil dari suatu kebijakan khusus yang meminta porsi perempuan ditambahkan dalam jumlah karyawan kantor. Sebagaimana saya sampaikan dalam tulisan-tulisan saya, sebagai penganut kesetaraan garis keras, saya justru tidak mau ada pemberian perlakuan spesial atas dasar gender (selain karena isu biologis semisal hanya perempuan yang sejauh ini bisa hamil dan oleh karenanya wajar diberikan cuti melahirkan). No wonder people consider me as the most unromantic guy, haha.

    Isunya sedari awal memang bukan memberikan kesempatan tambahan kepada perempuan untuk dipekerjakan, tetapi bagaimana kita bisa memberikan edukasi kepada semua pemangku kepentingan yang relevan dengan si calon pengacara (termasuk orang tua, pasangan, dan handai taulan) bahwa seharusnya perempuan tidak dibebani tambahan tanggung jawab untuk mengurus isu-isu domestik yang seakan-akan secara alamiah menjadi bagian dari pekerjaan mereka. Penambahan beban ini yang kemudian sering kali menyebabkan perempuan harus memilih antara karir dan keluarga karena setelah secara ajaib tugas-tugas tersebut dianggap sebagai tugas perempuan, pengerjaan tugas-tugas tersebut oleh kaum lelaki dianggap semacam tindakan yang tidak sesuai dari garis kodrat lelaki (karena memang kalau mau bikin teori absud itu jangan setengah-setengah, harus tekan gas sekencang-kencangnya). Ini bahkan kita baru bicara soal pembagian peran saja, belum lagi stigma-stigma lainnya terkait kepemimpinan dan sifat psikologis perempuan yang akan jadi bahasan di lain waktu. 

    Terkait pembagian peran, selama pemangku kepentingan lainnya tidak secara aktif mendukung peranan perempuan yang lebih fleksibel, menambah porsi keterlibatan perempuan dalam bisnis akan menjadi kesia-sian. Mengapa? Karena terlepas dari promosi yang diberikan kepada mereka, selama beban tambahan di rumah terus ada, perempuan akan terus terpaksa untuk memilih dan belum tentu mereka akan memilih karirnya. Kalau demikian, untuk apa mereka dipromosikan di awal? Justru makin sedikit insentif bagi kantor hukum untuk mempromosikan perempuan karena adanya resiko tinggi dalam memberikan promosi kepada orang yang kemungkinan tidak akan meneruskan keberlangsungan institusi. Oleh karena itu, seperti layaknya kunci berdansa Tango yang indah atau membangun bisnis yang sukses, keberadaan partner yang kolaboratif mutlak ada, tidak bisa dilakukan sendirian.

    Yang mungkin tidak terpikirkan juga oleh penganut pembagian fungsi lelaki dan perempuan adalah bagaimana efek klaim pembagian yang kaku itu berdampak terhadap pilihan hidup kaum perempuan. Contoh di Korea Selatan dan Jepang misalnya ketika tingkat perkawinan dan kelahiran anak terus mengalami tren yang menurun. Yang namanya manusia memang sulit buat dipaksa terus menerus, jadi ketika perempuan tidak bisa melihat lagi fungsi dari pernikahan selain cuma nambah-nambahin kerjaan dia, apa insentif dia untuk masuk ke dalam institusi itu dan mengorbankan karirnya? Ini soal trade-off yang rasional. Pernikahan tentu ada manfaatnya, tetapi juga tidak kalah banyak biaya dan permasalahannya. Ini yang seharusnya juga dipertimbangkan sebelum memaksakan pembagian tugas tersebut dalam hubungan pernikahan atau hubungan-hubungan lainnya yang memerlukan pasangan untuk tinggal bersama. Ada aksi, tentu ada reaksi. Lebih rincinya sudah saya diskusikan di artikel lama saya yang bisa diakses di awal artikel ini. 

    Nah, kembali lagi ke soal edukasi pemangku kepentingan, minimal yang bisa saya sampaikan adalah praktek yang saya jalankan sendiri. Berhubung saya tidak sepakat dengan pembagian tugas domestik, dengan sendirinya, otak saya tidak bisa mengkotak-kotakkan tugas-tugas mana saja yang cocoknya dikerjakan perempuan atau oleh lelaki. Misalnya saya suka mengurus urusan administratif (which is why I act as the Managing Partner) dan memasak. Ya ketika di rumah, saya yang mengerjakan itu semua. Apakah dengan demikian saya tidak lagi menjadi laki-laki atau kelaki-lakian saya berkurang karena mengurusi hal-hal printilan? I dare anyone to make such claim against me. Prinsip saya gampang, serahkan tugas pada orang yang paling efisien untuk mengerjakan tugas itu. Dan karena waktu mahal, apabila ada orang lain yang bisa mengerjakan tugas itu dengan lebih baik dan dengan biaya yang bersaing, ya kasih ke orang itu. Sederhana toh? Ini bukan cuma buat bisnis, tapi juga urusan di rumah. 

    Tentu saja sebagai orang yang berkecimpung dalam hukum Islam, saya hafal semua dalil-dalil yang bisa dipakai untuk memosisikan saya (sebagai lelaki) untuk mendapatkan privilese tambahan, macam mengklaim berhak jadi pemimpin bagi wanita, atau lebih tinggi derajatnya sebagai suami, atau bisa minta jatah hubungan seksual setiap saat dari istri. Tapi seumur-umur saya tidak pernah menggunakan dalil itu dan alasannya sederhana (saya tidak akan membahas interpretasi dan dalil hukumnya dalam artikel ini, karena saya memang tidak sedang menulis soal aspek hukum), harga diri pribadi! Masa untuk menunjukkan bahwa saya lebih superior dari orang lain, saya harus minjam dalil yang sumbernya tidak intrinsik dari diri saya sendiri? Obviously, I want to demonstrate that I am superior against anyone else, but for the love of God, that should be established based on my own personal quality and nothing else

    Isu harga diri buat saya sebagai lelaki bukan level remeh temeh macam ketika saya menggunakan payung warna pink di Depok jaman kuliah dulu. Buat saya isunya segampang: suhunya panas banget, saya ga tahan panas (itulah mengapa saya suka banget musim dingin yang brutal di Chicago, walau kelahiran tropis, saya gagal jadi anak tropis), saya masih harus melanjutkan perjalanan dengan berjalan kaki (maklum, mahasiswa miskin), dan payung yang tersedia cuma ada yang warna pink. Persetan dengan persepsi terkait korelasi warna pink dan laki-laki atau ide bahwa lelaki seharusnya tahan panas dan ga boleh pakai payung.  

    Isu harga diri saya bahkan sebenarnya tidak ada hubungannya dengan gender saya, melainkan bersumber dari apakah saya bisa meyakini tanpa ada keraguan bahwa saya sudah mencapai kualitas yang saya inginkan dalam melakukan hal-hal yang saya putuskan sendiri sebagai keahlian saya. Dan menentukan hal-hal yang menjadi keahlian kita akan sangat bergantung dengan pilihan hidup masing-masing. Bebas.

    Aspek berikutnya di kantor yang saya jalankan terkait isu kesetaraan gender adalah kita tidak memasukkan potensi pengacara perempuan untuk suatu hari nanti berhenti bekerja karena urusan keluarga sebagai basis untuk menentukan apakah kita akan mempekerjakan yang bersangkutan atau tidak. Resiko itu selalu ada, tapi kita bertaruh dengan pemberian edukasi sebagaimana saya sampaikan di atas. Karena memang manusia ga bisa dipaksa. Tidak semua orang bisa menerima bahwa pembagian tugas itu hanyalah konstruksi sosial yang bisa jadi pernah efisien di masanya, tapi tidak lagi relevan di masa kini. Yang bisa kita lakukan adalah memfasilitasi supaya kesempatan perempuan tidak lantas berkurang untuk berkarir dan di sisi lainnya, karena tidak ada affirmative action, tidak perlu pusing menganalisis perkembangan karir masing-masing pengacara selain dari kualitas intrinsik mereka sebagai legal experts and rainmaker

    Terakhir, situasi pandemi ini menunjukkan bahwa peluang untuk bekerja secara fleksibel itu sangat memungkinkan (ini juga saya bahas dalam artikel untuk menyambut tahun baru 2021). Dan fakta ini seharusnya bisa memudahkan pilihan karir perempuan (dan sebenarnya juga lelaki, karena berpikir bahwa cuma perempuan saja yang ingin menghabiskan waktu di rumah adalah bentuk sesat pikir dan diskriminasi bagi kaum lelaki). Alih-alih harus mengorbankan salah satu, opsi kerja fleksibel yang bebas dari keterbatasan ruang memungkinkan setiap orang untuk menjalankan peran ganda di rumah dan di luar rumah. Artinya, kemampuan manajemen waktu supaya orang bisa makin produktif di mana pun mereka berada akan makin menjadi krusial. 

    Perlu diingat bahwa kemajuan teknologi tidak menafikan kebutuhan dukungan dari semua pemangku kepentingan. Edukasi ini perlu terus menerus diulang-ulang dan disosialisasikan. Kalau belum punya pasangan, baiknya bertanya soal pilihan masa depan. Dengan situasi persaingan yang makin tinggi, konsepsi pembagian tugas lelaki dan perempuan yang digaungkan dalam Undang-Undang Perkawinan akan makin usang. Realitasnya, apa masih memungkinkan bagi kebanyakan pasangan untuk mengandalkan hanya satu sumber penghasilan? Data empirisnya masih perlu digali lebih jauh, tapi saya sangsi tren single income family bisa bertahan untuk masa depan (kecuali salah satu pasangan kita masuk kategori wong sugih, kalau sobat misqueen, ya sulit). 

    Bagaimana dengan industri hukum sendiri? Bisnis harus terus selalu berkembang dan karena bisnis hukum adalah bisnis orang, membatasi pool kandidat berbasis gender adalah tindakan yang culun. Talenta bisa datang dari mana saja dan adalah pilihan yang rasional untuk membuka keran supply sebesar-besarnya untuk dapat mencari penerus-penerus institusi selanjutnya. Masalah bagaimana kita mendidik mereka dan memastikan mereka akan jadi penerus yang mumpuni adalah tantangan selanjutnya.

    So, congratulations again to Melati and Poppy, a pleasure to welcome you both at the senior partnership table. Cheers to all the female lawyers!     

  • On Finding a Successor


    I recently found another gem of a slice-of-life manga titled Sota's Knife (Souta no Houchou) and boy, what a page turner! The manga tells the story of Sota Kitaoka, a young man from Hokkaido, that pursues the art of classical Japanese cuisines at Ginza Tomikyu, a ryotei that is known as one of the best traditional restaurants in Tokyo (all are fictional in case you are wondering). The relationship between Sota and Kyugoro Tomita (his Oyakata a.k.a boss/owner chef/master), his colleagues (including his love interest, Tomita's daughter), his growth from a kitchen helper to the top level, his dream of opening his own restaurant versus continuing the legacy of his boss, the hyper competitive environment of restaurants in Tokyo, and the passion and dedication of a true Shokunin shown throughout the series, are simply beautiful and full of emotions. Not only that they remind me of all the restaurants and chefs in Japan that I love so much (and sadly I could not visit until God knows when), but also the journey of my own career and what I look forward to for my future.

  • On The Future of Lawyering


    Here is a rather gloomy article on the future of lawyering. I would say that while some US and UK law firms might face serious problems, the same thing is not happening in Indonesia, or rather, not happening yet. Will it someday happen? Might be, but I doubt that it will be soon.

    The main issues raised in this article are among others: globalization (i.e. legal outsourcing), super expensive bills, and technology innovation that might reduce lawyers' administrative work. Compared to Indonesia, all of these issues are not relevant.

    There is no incentive in Indonesia to do a legal outsourcing, especially to India, simply because the costs might be very similar. Expensive bills might be a case, but for most of foreign and local clients, Indonesian firm bills are still cheaper compared to international law firms (in terms of sophisticated projects) and surely Indonesian firms have a better understanding about Indonesian law in any case. Technological innovation? Yes it will help lawyer's job. But can it replace the lawyers? I really doubt it. It would be foolish to think that technology will replace lawyers completely or reduce their existence significantly in the future.

    In my opinion, the legal market in Indonesia is strong. There are still a lot of works to do and there are also many types of clients and law firms. In this case, specialization is very important, either you want to focus on administrative tasks or chase the bigger fish and work on sophisticated transactions. In fact, even simple transactions need the expertise of lawyers. I've seen too many examples of poorly drafted contracts which will open an endless debate between the parties whenever their relationship goes sour, and yet, the transactions are not even that complicated.

    One thing to remember though, while Indonesian lawyers might enjoy the current strong legal market, we should always remember that business always evolves. In the end the practice of lawyers will need to go with the applicable market practice and law firms must always be ready for such changes. As the law has evolved for thousands of years, lawyers should also do the same. That's why it is important to build an institution, a firm that will live on even when all of its founding partners have died or left the firm, a firm that can produce the next generation that will maintain the stability of the firm, generate new clients and income, and adapt to the ever changing world. Can Indonesian lawyers do this? Time will tell.
  • Thinking Like a Lawyer for Corporate Lawyers


    To be honest, I've practiced as a lawyer for more than 6 years and still, I don't know exactly what's the true meaning of thinking like a lawyer. Apparently, Prof. Bainbridge thinks that to enable more lawyers to think like a lawyer, law schools require more experienced lawyers than PhDs to teach at those schools. See the article here. You can also see a nice law review article on thinking like a lawyer here.

    I have to disagree with some of his premises though. My gut feeling says that the main problem with those PhDs is not that they can't teach lawyers about other fields that can enrich a lawyer's ways of thinking but simply because the quality of those PhDs are mediocre. On the other hand, I am quite certain that asking more experienced lawyers to teach at law schools seems like a good proposal, especially if you're talking about corporate laws. Like it or not, in Indonesia, the development of corporate laws lies mostly in the hand of corporate lawyers instead of theoretical lecturers. The problem is, most of these lawyers don't have the time to share their knowledge to law students, which is a pity.

    Why do I say that the teaching of corporate laws needs corporate lawyers? Corporate law is not only about legal issues per se. There is an economic structure behind the corporate laws and to understand such structure, lawyers need to have sufficient experience handling various corporate transactions. These experiences will enable lawyers to gain knowledge on the commercial issues of their clients which will further help them in understanding the economic structure of the corporate laws and how to improve such laws.

    Some thought provoking questions: Why there should be a limited liability concept for companies? Why directors have fiduciary duties toward the company? Why do we need commissioners for supervising the management of the company? Why we tend to limit a company to enter into affiliated party transactions? And many more.

    As you may see, the above questions pose certain economic rationales. There is no simple right or wrong answer in corporate laws as in the end, it depends on the economic structure that the regulators choose to build the foundations of corporate laws. There are virtually unlimited ways to improve our corporate laws, promote efficiency and create more preferences to the society. We need to always remember that corporations are essential institutions of the market, and therefore, it is natural if the laws that govern corporations should be designed carefully and thoughtfully.

    Stay tune as I will uncover some of these economic structures in my future posts.
  • Tweet Series: My Rants on Lawyering


    I've been twittering for some time and realized that Twitter is a really bad choice for storing your thoughts. So, in order to preserve some of my ideas there, I will post my tweets collection from time to time here, starting with my Lawyering Tweet Series. Enjoy :)
    1. As a lawyer, you can be as smart as possible, but if you can't get the deal done, you're useless. As simple as that.
    2. A partner said that lawyers should have high sense of client belonging. Well, if I get the client credit, I'll treat them as family!
    3. To move to the next level, lawyers should never forget to do good marketing, since partnerships are offered to rain makers.
    4. So we're having a session on being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Lawyer. I tell you one thing. Stop the crap, and pay us more. Case closed.
    5. Lawyers will never get a balanced life from some trainings, but from proper work distribution and efficient working system.
    6. If you're a good lawyer, client will trust you no matter what. Appearance sure helps, but only for the first meeting.
    7. Any good lawyer knows that the purpose of contract drafting is to reduce or even eliminate any potential dispute, not to create one.
    8. It is a tragedy that qualified lawyers who understand the law must work under laws made by unqualified people.
    9. What is the joy of becoming the best lawyer in town if you are merely a spokesperson of some bad and stupid laws?
    10. A lawyer who can't write properly is like a chef who can't cook.
    11. Being a lawyer requires great intelligence, persistence, and diligence, but none of them would be helpful if you don't have the passion.
    12. Quality of life is a bullshit for lawyers. If you're complaining of not having it, you definitely work in the wrong area.
    13. A lawyer cannot be considered as smart if he cannot produce other smart lawyers.
    14. A lawyer who doesn't know that his job is risky is a dumb, but he is still better than a lawyer who knows the risk and doesn't take it seriously.
    15. What is the first thing to do when a lawyer receives a new assignment? Review it? Make a summary? Nope, request the client matter number!!!
    16. Commercial pragmatists are the future of lawyers: those who can blend smoothly in-depth legal knowledge with practical commercial skills.
    17. To know whether a lawyer is good in making a legal opinion, look not at the content, but on its assumption and qualification.
    18. A little advice to fellow lawyers, never assume that your clients know your assumptions. Assumptions were made to be written not assumed.
    19. As capital market lawyers, our main task is to make proper public disclosure, not fixing all problems. You're not God.
    20. Fellow lawyers, remember this: someday all of our extreme hardship and long hours shall become stories for us to laugh. Be patient!
    21. A first class lawyer is not he who knows everything but he who knows when to stop and say "let me check that again."
    22. Lawyers should be ambitious with their career. Without any ambition, you'll soon forget why you're here in the first place.
    23. Lawyers' dedication comes from belief in excellence. But it must be supported by good rewards. We're not monkeys that you can pay with peanuts.
    24. To be a great lawyer, focus and be an expert in at least 1 particular subject. Being a jack of all trades is only good if you're a clown.
    25. A lawyer needs to maintain his sanity to have a long term career. At certain point, take a nice break and enjoy our life for a while.
    26. For lawyers, clients should always be number one, but don't be naive and make unnecessary sacrifices cause they aren't everything.
    27. A lawyer should master the art of covering-my-own-ass before he can master the art of giving-the-right-solution.
    28. It perfectly makes sense for lawyers to complain on their job. What unusual is the people who think that those lawyers are exaggerating.
    29. In case you have not realized it, there is a limit to which a lawyer can be held responsible for his deeds.
    30. Lawyers are paid to give advices that can be understood by mere mortals. If your lawyer confuses you, you definitely pick the wrong one.
    31. A good lawyer would never choose to advance slowly in his career, as he will always aim for a great leap to fame and fortune. Be ambitious!
    32. Lawyers are problem solver. If you think you're good only for succesfully spotting issues, you're still a half baked lawyer.
    33. Three basic foundations of a law firm: Capital, People, and Reputation. Losing the latter would have the most devastating impact.
    34. A good lawyer knows that the first draft is always a rubbish. It is through continous review and amendment that we produce a masterpiece.
    35. Lawyers' creativity is not granted, it is obtained from countless practices and accumulation of knowledge. There is no short cut!
    36. A good lawyer must be knowledgeable and well versed in many issues, but he understand that it doesn't mean that he knows everything.
    37. A partner might be the most brilliant lawyer in the world, but he is still one person. Without having a solid team, he will certainly fail.
    38. What's the secret of creating the best firm? Recruiting the best people and maintaining them with the best incentives.
    39. I don't care where you come from or your past achievements. What I care is whether you are a good lawyer or not, now and in the future.
    40. For lawyers, the respect from one person is far more valuable than acquaintance with 100 people. Cause the first will be your loyal client.
    41. You work products reflect who you are. While there is always a chance to fix them, why not give a great impression from the first?
    42. Lawyers, your transactions are your portfolios. Make sure that they and your role in them are well recognized by existing and future clients.
    43. A lawyer can't progress to the next level if he can't articulate his ideas in a systematic way.
    44. Lawyers are advisor not decision maker. Our job is to give our best advice and let the client to decide. As simple as that.
    45. What is the biggest asset of a lawyer? A genius mind? Relationship mastery? No! Reputation. Hard to build, easy to lose.
    46. A commercial pragmatist lawyer will try to satisfy the client's commercial needs to the extent possible without breaching the law.
    47. The best part of becoming a lawyer is the fact that the subject of law is pretty much unlimited, there are always new things to learn.
    48. As a lawyer, if we can't do what the client wants, inform them immediately and make them understand. Don't sacrifice the relationship.
    49. In lawyers' job, there is no bullet proof mechanism from making mistakes. Thus, be creative in preparing your ass covering strategy.
    50. Knowing the fee structure of each assignment is essential for lawyers, so they can bill their work efficiently and appropriately.
    51. A lawyer should plan his career from the first day he entered the job. After all, the ending path is always visible, what matters is how?
    52. A good lawyer should know his limit. If you feel you can't handle the workload anymore, do not hesitate to shout it to your boss.
    53. If you're a lawyer, you'll eventually learn that in terms of acquiring knowledge, the sky is the limit.
    54. Clients confidentiality must be maintained by lawyers. If you can't be trusted with their secrets, how can you be trusted for other things?
    55. Actually, lawyers should be prioritized in obtaining scholarship, because a good lawyer is essentially a better legal scholar.
    56. I learn that in term of quality, there is no significant difference between us and foreign lawyers. It's about the correct exposure.
    57. A law firm's opinion must be unanimous, thus no lawyers in such firm can issue a dissenting opinion. I too am obliged to follow that rule.
    58. For some lawyers, lawyering is a way to earn living, but for some others, lawyering is a way of life. I am for the latter.
  • The Birthday of the Capitalist Lawyer: Some Wishes and Thoughts on Law and Lawyers


    Today is my 26th birthday, so in this special day, instead of writing and analyzing things, let me tell you some of my wishes and random thoughts on my most beloved subjects, law and lawyers. Enjoy!
    1. I believe that laws should be made by professionals not some common people, i.e. the parliament, and I wish that we could achieve that as soon as possible. Of course, the process of recruiting those professionals should be made as democratic and transparent as possible. If not, then we would only have another despotic government.
    2. I wish to have a virtual data base that has complete legal references and sources which have been systematically organized and all I need to do to find them is by one click. That would be glorious.
    3. I wish that I could have more time in learning all the new things about law. Law is a never ending process, continuously evolving in order to achieve perfection. It is really frustrating that I can't follow all of those new developments.
    4. Being a lawyer requires great intelligence, perseverance, persistence, and diligence, but none of them would be helpful if you don't have the passion.
    5. Good lawyers love to be challenged, great lawyers surpass those challenges. However, always remember the golden rule of lawyers: Do not take responsibilities more than you are being paid for.
    6. Never underestimate the usefulness of inputting your time sheets daily.
    7. Commercial pragmatists are the next generation of lawyers, those who can smoothly combine superb legal knowledge with deep commercial understanding of the client's business.
    8. Lawyers are consultants and therefore our job is to help our clients in making decisions not to make decisions by ourselves. See the golden rule above.
    9. If you're only looking for the money, you should not work as a lawyer, since there are other jobs that will give you better income with less working time. But, if you're looking for a respectable profession that can satisfy your pride, you have come to the right place.
    10. If you have worked as a lawyer for years and you still can't gain the trust of your clients, you should stop and pick another career. Without client's trust there would be no business development, no business development means no advance in career, so why bother working as a lawyer?
    11. Doing you best is not enough to reach the top. Always try to surpass your own standard and never be satisfied with your performance even when you think that you have reached the top, there is always a room to grow, a room for improvement. Like my partner once said: "I could never be fully satisfied with my associates since I fear that once I tell them how satisfied I am, they would cease to improve their qualities."

  • A Short Defense on Lawyers Work


    I'm quite shocked with this piece of letter, especially because it was published in the New York Times. What's wrong with being a highly paid lawyer? Is it that bad to work as a lawyer in the United States? How come the shortage of job with high salaries is good for the development of law graduates? And, the most important question is, how on earth can someone made a claim like this: "as the jobs with large salaries disappear, law students will draw on the thoughtfulness, intelligence and perseverance that got them into law school in the first place in order to find employment that they actually find rewarding."

    Is he trying to say that having a career as a lawyer would cause law graduates to lose their thoughtfulness, intelligence and perseverance??? Pardon me sir, but among many types of career that can be pursued by a law graduate, I find that being a lawyer provides the biggest opportunity for a law graduate to maintain and increase their thoughtfulness, intelligence and perseverance. It goes without saying that a good lawyer must combine all of those three qualities in order to survive in their job.

    Any law firm who truly cares about the quality of their work and talents would be most probably establish a system which will ensure that all of their lawyers are able to maintain those three qualities. These include proper distribution of work, work review mechanism, and systematic training program. Why I believe that those three qualities will be maintained and increased by becoming a lawyer? See some examples below:
    • If you want to train a lawyer's perseverance, throw him into a very boring due diligence exercise. It's very important, but everyone knows that it's an administrative paper work. Those who can survive the hellish due diligence exercise will not doubt have a perseverance of a true knight.

    • If you want to train a lawyer's thoughtfulness, throw him into various negotiation meetings with clients and their counter parts. The first experience will always be scary, but it will definitely train his ability to think and act carefully, as he will have to respond to on-the-spot questions and he will need to understand his clients needs and translate those needs into commercially acceptable legal terms. He will also learn to act in a professional manner all the time to ensure that he can gain trust from both sides.

    • If you want to train a lawyer's intelligence, throw him into structuring a complex transaction or make him do some advisory works. That would done the job easily.
    And come on, how can someone says that having a job with less salary is good? No sir, that's not good at all. You ask people to be happy with less salary? You're saying that dreaming a career in a big paid law firm is not worthy to be pursued? My suggestion, if you want to cheer up these poor law graduates about their prospective careers, find a better reason next time.
  • Young Girl Goes to Law School: What's Wrong with That???


    This story is hilarious, particularly because people have many different views on whether a 19 years smart young girl should really go to a law school. Okay, I understand that in the United States, a law school is designed as a grad school, means that you need to at least have a college degree before you can enter into such law school. And, since I've never gone into a US law school, I don't know whether the education there is really hard or not. However, in Indonesia, you can go straight to a faculty of law of an university after being graduated from your high school. I join my faculty of law when I'm still 17 years old, and already start my career as a lawyer when I'm 21 years old. And that's very usual in Indonesia. I've seen many good young lawyers, they can do a decent job and will be even better with more experience from years to come. So what's wrong if a 19 years old girl chooses to go to a law school? I say, the younger the better. I believe that those who start at a fresh young age will have a lot more of time to adjust themselves with the law world and therefore may develop their career faster. Being a lawyer might be a tough job, but it's fun. It will definitely involve some administrative paper work, but you won't do that forever, because along with the progress of your career, you'll have a lot more of experience and get more challenging and interesting jobs. Just remember one thing, a lawyer's career may depend on various factors, but in the end the most dominant factor would always be yourself. So for Miss Kate Laughlin, congratulations on your enrollment and welcome to the ever changing world of law.

  • The Protection of Criminal Suspects in Law and Economics Perspective

    Forthcoming in Jurnal Teropong Edisi RUU KUHAP 2015 | 23 Pages | Posted: 10 May 2015 | Date Written: April 28, 2015

    Public Choice Theory and its Application in Indonesian Legislation System

    24 Pages | Posted: 8 Oct 2012 | Last revised: 8 Nov 2014 | Date Written: October 8, 2012

    Special Purpose Vehicle in Law and Economics Perspective

    Forthcoming in Journal of Indonesia Corruption Watch, 'Pemberantasan Kejahatan Korupsi dan Pencucian Uang yang Dilakukan Korporasi di Sektor Kehutanan', 2013 | 15 Pages | Posted: 22 Aug 2013 | Date Written: August 18, 2013

    Legal Positivism and Law and Economics -- A Defense

    Third Indonesian National Conference of Legal Philosophy, 27-28 August 2013 | 17 Pages | Posted: 22 Aug 2013 | Last revised: 3 Sep 2013 | Date Written: August 22, 2013

    Economic Analysis of Rape Crime: An Introduction

    Jurnal Hukum Jentera Vol 22, No 7 (2012) Januari-April | 14 Pages | Posted: 12 Nov 2011 | Last revised: 8 Oct 2012 | Date Written: May 7, 2012

    DISCLAIMER

    As the author of this site, I am not intending to provide any legal service or establish any client-attorney relationship through this site. Any article in this site represents my sole personal opinion, and cannot be considered as a legal advice in any circumstances. No one may use or reproduce by any means the articles in this blog without clearly states publicly that those articles are the products of and therefore belong to Pramudya A. Oktavinanda. By visiting this site, you acknowledge that you fully understand this disclaimer and agree to fully comply with its provisions.