Of Champs, Chumps and
Chimps
What lawyers earn has been in the news of late. The focus has been
on the top eight earners in the profession, who apparently earn
substantially more than their counterparts in five other sectors.
The context has been the financial sacrifices that government
ministers have made in agreeing to become ministers, on the basis
that if they had not done so they would have been top earners in
the private sector.
The issue can be approached at three levels. First, there is
principle. Second is mechanics, or structure. Third and finally,
there is the impact of it all on social values.
At the level of principle is the shift from an attempt to reward
contribution to government and country to an attempt to estimate
what he or she would otherwise have earned in the private sector,
what has been described as the opportunity cost of a public sector
career choice. The reward for contribution method, still employed
in many countries today, typically ensures that a government
employee and his or her family are housed, chauffered, medically
attended to and in due course pensioned in accordance with a scale
that fits that person's status. It is detached from the employment
market, and indeed from the housing market, as the government holds
a stock of prime housing that it recycles from generation to
generation. It has the virtue of expressing society's gratitude
(coupled with a sense of what is enough to mark that gratitude),
and explicitly matches status to office. Against it is the risk
that society's sense of enough may not match the ambition of
talented people, and so the public sector will not attract
sufficient talent.
When I was in India last year I asked the daughter of a former
Supreme Court Judge whether there was any difficulty posed by the
gap that exists there between judicial salaries and private sector
salaries, say those of top senior advocates. She looked at me as if
I was mad, and patiently as if to a small child explained the
tremendous respect in which she and her family had been held, not
to mention the lovely home in which she had grown up, although of
course that home was passed on to another judge once her father
retired. She went on to say that as far as she knew no one turned
down a higher court appointment, as the opportunity to make and
interpret law authoritatively was of incalculable reward for anyone
who loved the law.
Singapore has long since moved away from a system based on valuing
the contribution made and honouring the office for itself. The
focus today is on trying to determine remuneration that, while not
outpacing the private sector, does not fall too far short of top
earners. The justification for it is precisely the fear that top
talent will not join the public sector. That peanuts will attract
only chimps. But as a method it is fraught with uncertainty. It is
hard to put a value on the many differences between the two sectors
- for example, the greater security and higher status of the public
sector, the longer working hours and greater business stress of the
private sector. Not to mention different pension rights, and the
vast difference in consistency and longevity of earnings (lawyers'
earnings typically peak in their forties and early fifties and can
then fall away quite sharply, and in any case fluctuate greatly
from year to year). If a career in the public sector is perceived
to be less risky and yet as rewarding, then the best and brightest
(as the expression goes) will choose government over business,
which may not after all be in the best interests of the
nation.
Hard as it is to get the benchmark right in terms of career
signals, it is harder still to convince people of its rightness.
The market operates to reward disproportionately people who have
been lucky, or have acquired the aura of a champion. Think of the
huge gap in earning power between the top basketball players and
the next rung - the difference in ability may be marginal at best.
The same phenomenon occurs elsewhere, and certainly does in the
legal profession. Yet some of the best judges in England, Australia
and elsewhere have not been top earners in their previous
incarnations as advocates or as solicitors, but have excelled as
judges because of their combination of good minds and stout
hearts.
In short, the opportunity cost method assumes or reflects an
attitude that money is the common currency for all the choices one
can make about one's life. In its favour, this could be said to be
just being realistic. Moreover, it assists transparency. Without
comparable pay, the risk of hidden perks - ranging from the
legitimate to the shady - associated with office is a real one. But
it can hardly be doubted that one effect of the emphasis on money
is to undercut volunteerism and the spirit of public service. It is
a reductionist ethos that leaves little room for other motivations.
One often hears the expression 'national service' to describe
various unpaid posts that private sector individuals take on for a
public cause, often specifically in aid of a government policy.
Such work benefits us all. But, given the materialist spirit of the
times, people urged to do their part by way of such 'national
service' will be forgiven if they sometimes wonder whether they are
being taken for chumps.
Unfortunately, there's very little that the profession can do to
change or even influence the terms of the debate. The public is
told that top lawyers earn astronomical amounts. And that top
engineers earn much, much less. What will this mean to the image
and standing of the two professions? For sure, the law faculties at
NUS and SMU will be even more over-subscribed than they are at
present. And the engineering faculties will see a sharp drop off of
applicants. It is unfortunate that the public may be getting a
rather skewed idea of the two professions - there is much less of a
gap once one looks below the rung of top earners.
Expect clients too to wonder how to square lawyers' complaints
about the very real squeeze on legal fees with the apparent
exuberance of top lawyers' pay. Will they understand that the
headline numbers don't tell the whole story?
Perhaps the only way to redress what is probably a misleading
glimpse of what it really means to be a lawyer (or doctor or
accountant or engineer) would be for IRAS now to release figures
showing what the average income levels are at different stages of a
legal, medical, accounting and engineering career, including how
they fluctuate, plateau and taper off.
But there seems no way to redress the underlying shift in how we
count our time on earth - a shift from values of service and
significance to emphasis on success measured in dollars and cents.
But it is a terrible shame all the same. And whether the cause is
hopeless or not, we should not succumb just yet. The profession
still has plenty of room for socially aware, dedicated lawyers to
make a mark, and earn a decent living in the process, as well as
for the few financial champs. So long as one has enough to keep
self and family in food, shelter, health and education, giving up
billable hours for professional or social service is still a
worthwhile endeavour.
Philip Jeyaretnam, SC
President
The Law Society of Singapore
====
Here's the link.
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2007-5/president.htm
Law Gazette - May 2007 issue.
