Keren is a concerned mother. She desires very much to see her son become an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. Having spent more than RM250,000, Karen is understandably distressed because her son has now been barred from sitting for the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) – after he failed on 4 consecutive attempts.
While you may have been tempted to think that Karen’s son should perhaps reconsider practicing as a lawyer in Malaysia, another fleeting but more weighty thought may have also crossed your mind i.e. does LPQB possess the power in the first place to ban someone from registering for the CLP examination?
The LPQB is a creature of the LPA and thus all of it’s decisions and actions must have its source in the LPA.
Section 3 of the LPA defines a “qualified person” as one who possesses the qualifications declared to be sufficient by the LPQB in the Gazette. A perusal of the Gazette (P.U.(B) 596 dated 25 September 1990) reveals that someone who passes the CLP examination is a “qualified person”. There is no mention that one has to do this in 4-attempts.
So where is this 4-attempts requirement found? A quick search reveals that it is set out in a circular issued by the LPQB i.e. Syarat-Syarat Kemasukan Peperiksaan Sijil Amalan Guaman 2021, published on the LPQB’s website.
See paragraph 7.1: https://lnkd.in/grM_96b7
Given that the law stipulates that Karen’s son may be a “qualified person” if he inter alia passes the CLP examination, and noting that the 4-attempt ban is not stated in the Gazette and therefore not forming any part of the lawfully stipulated qualification, did LPQB act ultra vires the LPA in imposing the 4-attempt ban via the 2021 circular? It certainly appears so.
One may also ask what is LPQB’s rationale for the ban to kick in after 4 attempts? Why not 3, 5 or 10 attempts? Was that number an arbitrary one? Is the ban reasonable considering its perpetuity? Is the decision proportionate to the object of LPA especially when the annual passing rate stands between 20% – 25%? Did LPQB take into account all relevant considerations and disregard irrelevant ones when arriving at this decision that would permanently prevent Karen’s son (and the many other law students like him) from ever achieving their dreams of being called to the bar?
These would be interesting legal questions that would have to be addressed if Karen decides that LPQB’s decision ought to be scrutinized in a Court of law, in which case she will certainly have to proceed by way of a judicial review action against the LPQB.
