Act Now To Reform Clp And Legal Training In Malaysia

---

 If Malaysia is serious about improving legal education, it must do so before yet another generation of inadequately trained graduates enters the profession.
A retired Federal Court judge recently shared an FMT article titled Report shows up shoddy work of budding lawyers in CLP exam.
For many in the legal profession, this revelation was unsurprising. Concerns over the competency of graduates entering the field have long been raised, even before my own admission to the Malaysian Bar.
Having authored law books covering more than half of the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) syllabus and served as an examiner during my tenure as a judge, I have witnessed firsthand the shortcomings of the current system.
Yet, despite repeated criticisms, no meaningful reforms have been introduced to address these persistent issues.
The need for practical training
One fundamental flaw in Malaysia’s CLP system is the lack of structured practical training before candidates sit for the examination.
A simple yet effective solution would be to introduce a compulsory trainee programme, requiring candidates to work in a law firm for a set number of hours. This programme should focus on criminal and civil practice, conveyancing and litigation—equipping future lawyers with hands-on experience before they attempt the CLP exams.
Similarly, local universities that offer law degrees could integrate a structured practical training module, ensuring graduates are well-prepared for the realities of legal practice.
This would complement the existing pupillage requirement outlined in the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA).
Lessons from other legal training systems
Historically, legal education in England included a structured law and practice programme within the Inns of Court, where students were required to acquire both theoretical knowledge and practical skills before qualifying as barristers.
Over time, the system has evolved. Today, aspiring lawyers obtain an academic law degree before enrolling for the UK Bar exams, bypassing the traditional hands-on training requirement.
A similar model existed in British India, known as the vakil (or pleader) system, where trainees gained practical experience under the supervision of seasoned practitioners before law colleges formally introduced legal education.
This method ensured aspiring lawyers understood court procedures and legal work firsthand—bridging the gap between academic learning and professional competency.
Malaysia once had its own adaptation of this system through the articled clerkship programme, which gradually faded with the introduction of the CLP Board and its examinations.
The programme received a timely boost earlier this year after the Court of Appeal ruled it was wrongly abolished by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board.
Given the persistent concerns about graduate competency, reviving and modifying the articled clerkship programme could provide a better solution than the current CLP framework.
Replacing CLP with a practice-based system
In my view, it is not too late to scrap the CLP exams in favour of a structured articled clerkship programme, particularly for foreign law graduates entering Malaysian legal practice.
Such a system must still be made to adhere to requirements set by the Federal Court registrar and the Bar Council for obtaining a practicing certificate—but would ensure candidates are equipped with the necessary skills before they qualify.
This reform should also mandate legal aid work in criminal and civil cases, supervised by both the Bar Council and court registrars, ensuring candidates gain real-world experience while upholding professional integrity.
Such an approach would significantly enhance access to justice at a more affordable cost while improving the standard of legal practitioners in the country.
Global shift toward specialisation
Many jurisdictions now distinguish between practicing advocates and non-practicing legal professionals, particularly those working as in-house counsel.
For example, Singapore has formally recognised this distinction, ensuring that all legal professionals adhere to appropriate accountability and professional ethics standards.
Malaysia should take note of such international best practices and reconsider whether its current legal training model truly serves the needs of aspiring practitioners and the broader legal profession.
Conclusion
Legal practice is not just about theoretical knowledge—it requires rigorous practical training. While obtaining an academic law degree may be relatively straightforward, mastering legal work demands structured apprenticeships, exposure to real cases, and hands-on supervision.
The Legal Profession Act 1976 could be amended to formally reinstate and modernise the articled clerkship programme, eliminating the need for CLP exams altogether.
If Malaysia is serious about improving legal education, now is the time to act—before yet another generation of inadequately trained graduates enters the profession. - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---