Pro? or No Pro?

An "interesting" article in the Star today. This has sparked some debate among fellow lawyers in our email newsletter.

Why you asked?

Reason is simple, and it all stems from the last 3 paragraphs of the article:-

"Other than going to a specialised will writing company or institution, one can also go to a lawyer to draw up a will.

But Chong points out that lawyers handle a host of legal matters including civil and criminal law suits, Sales and Purchase agreements and draw up contracts and as such they might not be specialists in will writing.

“If you have a heart problem, would you go to just a GP? No. You would go to a cardiologist because he is a specialist. It’s the same with wills."

Some smart guy this is.

Well, to begin with, drafting a will is akin to drafting any other legal document - it carries significant legal consequenses, and who better to advice the lay client on this other than a lawyer? duh.

And his anology of specialist vis a vis GP is errorneous and completely misconstrued. To begin with, both GPs and specialists are qualified practitioners in their own right! A GP is still a qualified person who may provide sound medical advice and diagnosis, and if the matter is one out of his hands or scope, he would be the first , as a professionally trained personnel, to refer the client (in this case his patient) to a specialist etc. In the present case, will writers are not even professionally qualified at times. What makes them "better" than legally trained lawyers who are also bound by stringent code of ethics etc governed by the Bar Council. Further, in Malaysia it is compulsory for lawyers to have professional negligence insurance to compensate clients in the event of negligent advice etc. This all adds up to additional security for the client.

Anyway, wont want to dwell too much into all this. No disrespect to any will writers around, but the statement from the interviewee cannot go unprotested. I understand the BC is gonna publish a response, lets all wait and see.

Will writers are not legally trained, at least not most of them. Even if so, Well, the interviewee doesnt think so. I do not intend to dwell too much into his statement, but just want to point out