Rethinking The Clp From A High Wall To A Well Signposted Bridge

---

 By pairing candid critique with open standards and structured pre-practice, the LPQB can keep the CLP true to its founding spirit — access with integrity.
From HB Chee
I refer to the FMT article “Report shows up shoddy work of budding lawyers in CLP exam” highlighting the weaknesses of those sitting for the July/August 2024 Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) exam in Malaysia.
The Examiner’s Report paints a troubling picture: more than half of the candidates did not pass three of the five papers, and many answers showed a weak command of English, poor drafting and little real-life understanding of legal work.
Historical background of the CLP 
In 1984, the Inns of Court changed their admission rules, abruptly preventing many Malaysians studying in the UK from sitting for the English bar finals.
To avert a looming bottleneck, the Malaysian Board of Legal Education hurriedly launched a “special course leading to a Certificate in Legal Practice” at the time as a stop-gap measure.
Forty years later, that provisional fix has evolved into the main gateway for foreign-trained graduates and for holders of the local Bachelor of Jurisprudence (Universiti Malaya) and Bachelor of Legal Studies (UiTM).
The scheme that has enabled thousands who could not afford a second stint in London to enter the profession, has unified the qualification standard for advocates and solicitors, and more importantly, CLP has kept the regulation of admission firmly within Malaysia’s own jurisdiction.
As a coach for CLP candidates now, I am often asked the same question: What exactly are the examiners looking for?
The 2024 Examiner’s Report
The report shows that many candidates never find the answer. Failure rates reached 58% in civil procedure and 65% in professional practice; scripts displayed “poor to average command of English”, “heavy reliance on memorised model answers” and “a weak ability to apply law to fact”.
Most tellingly, the report recommended that future candidates complete six months of firm-based internship before attempting the papers, which serves as an implicit admission that classroom teaching alone is not producing practice-ready graduates.
The root of the problem lies in transparency. Unlike some mature jurisdictions, the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) provides no official marking rubric, no grade descriptors and no sample scripts. In that vacuum, teaching colleges devise their own “model answers”, encouraging rote learning over genuine reasoning.
Candidates, unsure of the true benchmark, overlearn statutory quotations while neglecting analytical techniques. They also arrive at the exam with little exposure to real pleadings or court documents, so substantive knowledge often collapses under procedural uncertainty and shaky language.
England and Wales demonstrate that high standards can coexist with open expectations. Their Bar Standards Board places its curriculum and assessment strategy and detailed grade descriptors online for all to see.
After each sitting, the chair of the Central Examinations Board releases a public report discussing question difficulty, mark profiles and common errors; and every course provider must give students at least one mock paper with feedback, some even publishing worked answers.
In short, the marking yardstick is visible to candidates so they know where the bar is set and they can train accordingly.
The Examiners’ Report is a service to the profession; it diagnoses without fear or favour. But diagnosis alone, unaccompanied by a treatment plan, risks breeding only cynicism.
Recommendation 
Malaysia can achieve the same clarity without waiting for the long-discussed common bar course. Until that arrives, thousands of students remain in the current CLP pipeline. The LPQB could act immediately by adopting a few simple measures:
These steps would do more than improve pass rates. They would align study habits with real practice, ensure that every successful candidate meets a transparent standard and restore public confidence that newly admitted advocates are fit to safeguard a client’s interests from day one.
The CLP began as an inclusive bridge and should remain as one. Maintaining an examination that prizes rigour while concealing its own expectations risks turning that bridge into a wall.
By pairing candid critique with open standards and structured pre-practice, the LPQB can keep the CLP true to its founding spirit — access with integrity — and help the next generation of counsel cross from aspiration to competent service. - FMT
Dr HB Chee is a partner at Chris & Partners and a reader of FMT.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---