Good lawyers must know when to tell clients they are wrong, says CJ

Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh emphasized the importance of lawyers having the bravery to inform clients when their preferred legal approach is unfeasible, rather than blindly following their clients' wishes. He stressed that exceptional advocacy extends beyond legal knowledge, demanding an understanding of human behavior, prudent judgment, and adherence to ethical obligations.

The Chief Justice highlighted that lawyers should be prepared to disclose to their paying clients that their favored argument is legally unsound, even if this might result in losing the retainer. Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid clarified that true courage in advocacy is not about shouting, but rather expressed in a composed and consistent manner.

He stressed that the true measure of an advocate's skill is not standing up to a hostile judge or a bellicose opponent, but maintaining unwavering integrity by informing clients that their preferred argument is a legal catastrophe. The Chief Justice also urged lawyers to consider the emotional, ego-driven, and personal factors that often fuel conflicts, beyond the surface legal issue.

Using a hypothetical dispute between two banana fritter business partners, he illustrated how a seemingly million-ringgit contractual disagreement could be rooted in one partner feeling underappreciated publicly. Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid underscored that intellectual honesty, patience with complexity, and courage distinguish a superior lawyer from an ordinary one.

He reminded lawyers that they are court officers, accountable not only to their clients but also to the court, the profession, and the public. He reminded lawyers to prioritize human engineering over legal engineering and to aspire to excel beyond the average. Negeri Sembilan Bar Committee Chairman Karthigesan Shanmugan concurred that the justice system must become more people-centered, especially at the lower court level, which he termed the "doorstep of Malaysian justice."

He called for "practical judicial wisdom" in applying the law with fairness, proportionality, common sense, and understanding of human circumstances. Shanmugan also advocated for shifting the focus from "case management" to "justice management," asserting that efficiency should remain subservient to justice, and that the system should resolve disputes fairly, efficiently, and meaningfully.