|
©The Sunday Star (Used
by permission) by Shaila Koshy
Come September 2008, fewer Malaysians may seek a law degree from Britain if a
proposal to make compulsory a year of chambering in England is accepted. A
decision on the matter is expected this month amid protests from the legal
fraternity here and the four British Inns of Court.
MALAYSIANS wanting a law degree from Britain and the prestige of being called to
the English Bar may want to think twice about it.
They or their parents may have to set aside more money on top of the estimated
RM250,000 to RM400,000 for a three-year degree plus living expenses (depending
on which university and city) if a British Bar Council proposal to defer call to
the Bar comes into effect in September next year.
The decision by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) on the proposal is expected to be
announced very soon.
After a three-year law programme, a student may have to take up a 12-month
pupillage before being called to the British Bar.
The proposed year of chambering is to check the erosion of the quality of its
barristers. It adds a new tier to the route for the prestigious British law
degree to being called to the Malaysian Bar (see accompanying table). 
The barrister-at-law title, currently obtained after passing the Bar Vocational
Course (BVC) and completing the 12 requisite qualifying sessions, may now come
with the cost of an additional year.
Despite the pupillage in Britain, returning Malaysians would still have to do
nine months of chambering here before they can be admitted to the Malaysian Bar
as advocates and solicitors.
According to the British Council, there were 540 Malaysians studying various law
courses in the 2005/06 academic year.
The proposal came about as a result of public complaints about the quality of
barristers and some cases of misrepresentation but it means that the 250-plus
Malaysian students graduating a year will have to compete with other foreign as
well as British students for the already limited pupillages.
According to the Bar Council, chambers had offered 711 pupillages in 2002/2003.
This was less than the 766 the previous year.
But not every Malaysian doing the BVC intends to practise in Britain; more often
than not it is for the knowledge and experience, the prestige, future
networking, and “Plan B” if they decide to migrate.
While some organisations support the proposal in Britain, others have voiced
their objections to BSB. The Inns of Court (through which students are called)
have also expressed their concern for students from Malaysia and elsewhere.
Lawyer S. Radhakrishnan, Malaysian Inner Temple Alumni honorary secretary,
reminded the BSB that the barrister-at-law title has been a recognised
qualification in Malaysia for more than 100 years.
“If the BSB is to adopt the proposal, we believe that this would discourage many
Malaysians from enrolling with the Inns of Court, which is their preferred
choice, to pursue their objective of becoming a lawyer.”
According to the Bar Council secretariat, of the total 2,017 British qualified
lawyers in the Malaysian Bar, those from the Inns number 1,186 (Lincoln), 154
(Inner Temple), 419 (Middle Temple) and 242 (Gray).
By comparison, graduates from Australian universities number 543 and from New
Zealand 88.
On a brighter note, all pupillages in Britain have to be paid a minimum of
£5,000 (RM35,000) per six months plus reasonable travel expenses.
The £833 (RM5,833) a month is useful but just like the £550(RM3,850), which the
Bar Council estimates for the pupils’ wig and gown, there will be other expenses
and incidentals depleting that little reservoir.
“I can’t see them spending time and money to train someone who will end up
leaving the firm and the country,” said a 1988 Kent University law graduate who
did his Bar at Inner Temple.
Could those who had done pupillage in Britain be exempt from chambering here?
“The procedures for even simple applications have changed so much over the years
in both countries that a Malaysian lawyer who did pupillage in Britain and did
not chamber here would be handicapping himself and his client,” said a Cardiff
University graduate who returned home in 1996 to take the Malaysian Certificate
of Legal Practice (CLP) instead.
While qualifying for the CLP might be easier, passing it may not be a walk in
the park, going by the number of complaints after the results are released.
Taking the CLP option, however, would mean fewer or no ties with the four Inns.
In the last 100 years, thousands of Malaysians read law in Britain and returned
to set up private practice or serve as a judge or Attorney-General.
From the time of Tun Syed Sheh Barakbah, the first local Lord President, all
heads of the judiciary up to Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah have been members of one of
the Inns; it is the same with Malaysia’s first three prime ministers and the
current deputy prime minister.
Expressing concern for foreign students in a joint report, the Inner Temple and
Middle Temple touched on networking in a global world: “The international
network of barristers is a valuable connection .... It reinforces the legal
culture of the common law world and provides opportunities for international
practice.”
With the proposal, the “strong and beneficial international relationships ...
would be severed for good.”
Retired British judge Baroness Elizabeth Butler Sloss, who came here last
September to launch the Inner Temple alumni, said then: “The proposals for
Deferral of Call, if implemented in its currently proposed form, would turn the
clock back by making it more difficult for young people from families without
private means to study for the Bar.
“And we are well aware of the effect that these proposals might have here in
Malaysia on deterring future generations of young student barristers from coming
to Britain.”
It was a surprise that British Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further
and Higher Education Bill Rammell, who was here in February to sign a memorandum
of understanding (MoU) to foster collaboration, partnership and exchanges in
education between the UK and Malaysia, was not aware of the proposal.
Rammell said he would look into it but the issue would certainly require some
input from the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) here as well.
There has been a suggestion that a title other than barrister-at-law be given
after the Bar final but the LPQB will have to decide whether to accept such an
alternative.
It would be ironic if, despite the MoU between the British and Malaysian
governments, a solution is not found.
|