Date: 5th & 6th October 2009
Venue: Parkroyal, KL
Time: 8.30am – 5.30pm
Organiser: Marcus Evans
Contact: 603-2723 6757
Email: CatherineF@marcusevanskl.com
Website: www.marcusevans.com
Brochure:www.marcusevansassets.com/doc/pdfs/Ep_14994.pdf  

Synopsis:

Companies are operating in an environment that will present new opportunities and threats. Many are feeling the impact of the credit crunch, experiencing a different relationship with the regulator, yet they still have to make sure that excellent services are delivered. The professional duties of company secretaries have grown in leaps and bounds. Company secretary thus plays a pivotal role in advising the board of directors concerning disclosures, accountability and transparency issues. Although the company secretary is not involved in managerial task, yet he is implicated as a defaulter or offender of a law by virtue of his position as an officer of the company.

Marcus Evans’ ‘COSEC 2009: 4th Annual Company Secretary’ conference will bring together world class company secretaries to discuss the current concerns in enhancing governance, transparency and accountability standards while adding value to the growth of organisations. Leading industry case studies and best practices will be presented at the event to assist in building effective governance & compliance, managing directors’ and shareholders’ expectations and coping with the evolving responsibilities and liabilities of a company secretary.

This conference also highlights the participation of representatives from local and international companies such as Bursa Malaysia (Malaysia), British Telecommunications Group PLC (UK), Maxis Communication Berhad (Malaysia), StarHub (Singapore), Malayan Banking Berhad (Malaysia), Ayala Corporation (Philippines), Western Power (Australia), Siemens Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia), Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Philippines), Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Australia), KUB Berhad (Malaysia), Nestle Group of Companies (Malaysia), Wah Seong Corporation Berhad (Malaysia), Opus Group Berhad, subsidiary of UEM Group Berhad (Malaysia), HeiTech Padu (Malaysia), SIRIM Berhad (Malaysia) and among others.

For further event details and event brochure, kindly contact Ms. Catherine Foo at the contact details above.

Written by RODNEY KHOR

The legal profession has always been a highly regulated profession with rules, regulations and codes of conduct binding on members of the profession1. This comes as no surprise due to the nature of the legal profession being very interconnected with the mechanisms of the working of law itself. The general duties among other things include a duty to assist the courts in the administration of justice and this duty overrides the duty towards lay clients.

Despite the profession being highly regulated, there are circumstances that would warrant or attract a foreign practitioner2 to practise law in countries such as Malaysia3. Therefore, this article is narrowed down to concentrate on identifying the possibility for a foreign practitioner to practise law or to provide in-house legal advice in Malaysia.

The admission of legal practitioners in Malaysia is governed by section 114 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The requirements under this section amongst other things require a qualified person5 not to have been convicted in Malaysia or elsewhere of a criminal offence that would render him unfit to be a member of his profession or done any other act which, if being a barrister or solicitor in England, would render him liable to be disbarred, disqualified or suspended from practice. These requirements, one way or another, are common due to
the standard expected of potential legal practitioners.

In addition, he must either be a citizen of Malaysia or a resident of Malaysia and has satisfactorily completed the prescribed period of pupillage6. If a qualified person were to petition to the High Court to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor, there is a requirement that he has passed or is exempted7 from the Bahasa Malaysia8 Qualifying Examination9. This is the main route for admission amongst private legal practitioners in Malaysia10.

The difficulty that most foreign practitioners would face is the requirement under section 11(c), requiring them to be either a citizen or a resident of Malaysia and the Bahasa Malaysia Qualifying Examination requirement under section 11(2). In addition, a foreign practitioner would have to undergo a minimum prescribed period of pupillage of 3 months11. There are limited exceptions12 to this and if the requirements are not satisfied, a foreign practitioner will not be able to gain right of audience in the Malaysian courts13. An established foreign practitioner with many years of experience may find the requirements for pupillage discouraging. However, despite their experience, this requirement is meant to expose them to the Malaysian legal procedures14.

However, the exception that is normally applicable to a foreign practitioner being instructed to appear for a particular case is the admission in special cases under section 18 of the Act. This section enables a foreign practitioner to practise as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia for a particular case15. However, the court must be of the opinion that for the purpose of the particular case, the foreign practitioner has special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia and has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia16.

Cherie Booth QC, attempted to rely on section 18(1) applied for an ad hoc admission into the Malaysian Bar after being instructed to appear for a particular case. However, the application was refused by the High Court Kuala Lumpur and it was subsequently appealed to the Federal Court17. The judgment of the court considered the requirement of ‘special qualifications or experience’ by referring to established judicial precedents in Malaysia18. The court subsequently concluded, “special qualifications and experience under section 18(1)(a) of the LPA refers to the particular field of the law which that particular case is related and not in respect of each and every issue that arises in that case19”.

Therefore, if a foreign practitioner is in possession of the requisite qualifications or experience in a particular field of law that is relevant to the particular case that he intends to appear, then he would have satisfied the first requirement under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. However, the second requirement under same section must be satisfied in addition to the first. The special qualifications and experience must not be available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.

The Federal Court20 subscribed to the observation on the words ‘not available’ by Sharma J in Re S.K. Lee21. The special qualifications or experience that is required under section 18(1)(a) must be of a high degree of quality and type which cannot be found in local lawyers. Therefore, a foreign practitioner will have to persuade the Court22 that his special qualifications and experience satisfies both requirements.

An alternative to practising as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia is to provide in-house legal advice23. This is a viable alternative for foreign practitioners because the procedures24 are not as stringent comparatively with the former if an arrangement for employment has been secured25. The limitation that most foreign practitioners would have is the knowledge and experience with regard to relevant local laws. However, foreign practitioners with multi-national legal experience may find their legal knowledge and experience useful in assisting companies in their international transactions or investments.

In summary, there are 3 main methods for a foreign practitioner to enter the legal profession in Malaysia. The first method is to gain admission as an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia via the normal route that local practitioners use. However, the difficulty faced under this method may either be due to the language requirement or the residency requirement. The second method is to obtain special admission in particular cases. However, the difficulty that a foreign practitioner will face is to satisfy the requirements under s.18(1) of the Act. Additionally, admission under this route will only be permitted for that particular case. It is therefore not a viable long-term consideration. The third method would be to gain employment to provide inhouse legal advice. Although a foreign practitioner may not practise law locally under this route, he may nonetheless enter the legal profession in Malaysia without the difficulties faced by the previous methods.

Despite the difficulties faced by foreign practitioners to gain admission into the Malaysian Bar, the legal profession in general whether as a practitioner or an inhouse legal advisor has always been a challenging career. This is due to the continuing need to be updated with regard to changes in the law. The law is not stagnant and is ever changing with times, circumstances and society. Therefore, if a foreign practitioner truly does have the passion to practise law in Malaysia, then the methods considered above are worth a consideration.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Footnote:
1 Barristers-at-law are being regulated by the Bar Council (Today, a separate and independent
regulatory body known as the Bar Standards Board regulates barristers-at-law in England and Wales)
and solicitors being regulated by the Law Society. In a country with a fused profession, the regulatory
body may either be the Bar Council such as Malaysia or the Law Society such as Singapore.

2 A foreign practitioner for purposes of this article is defined as a practitioner in possession of legal
qualifications and right of audience outside Malaysia.

3 The legal profession in Malaysia is a fused profession and is governed by the Bar Council. A legal
practitioner in Malaysia is known as an Advocate and Solicitor.

4 s.1(1) Legal Profession Act 1976 is subject to s.14.

5 s.3 of the Act states that “a ‘qualified person’ means any person who (a) has passed the final
examination leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws of the University of Malaya, the University of
Malaya in Singapore, the University of Singapore or the National University of Singapore; (b) is a
barrister-at-law of England; or (c) is in possession of such other qualification as may by notification in
the Gazette be declared by the Board to be sufficient to make a person a qualified person for the
purposes of this Act.” The Legal Profession Qualifying Board may require foreign practitioners with
certain qualifications to sit for the Certificate in Legal Practice before satisfying paragraph c above.
There are requirements that must be satisfied to sit for the Certificate in Legal Practice. Visit
www.malaysianbar.org.my/admission_requirements.html to determine the entry requirements.

6 See s.12 of the Act on the period of pupilage. However, s.13(3) provides exemption for a qualified
person from any period up to six months subject to the Bar Council’s sole discretion upon satisfactory
evidence that the applicant has amongst other things, engaged in active practice as a legal practitioner by whatever name called in any part of the Commonwealth for a period of not less than six months.

7 A qualified person may be exempted by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board by virtue of s.5(f) and
11(2) of the Act if he has obtained at least a credit in Bahasa Malaysia for his Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

8 Translated in English to mean Malaysian language

9 s.11(2) of the Act.

10 Whether being admitted by virtue of being a qualified person due to a recognised degree in law from
a local public institute of higher learning, a barrister-at-law in England, or being in possession of any
other qualifications that is recognised by the Qualifying Board such as a Certificate in Legal Practice or
a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, England.

11 The period of 3 months is based on the maximum exemption possible under section 13 of the Act.

12 The only exceptions are the admission in special cases under s.18 of the Act and special admission
certificates issued by the Attorney General under s.28B of the Act.

13 This includes the High Courts and Subordinate Courts.

14 There is also a similar requirement on pupillage amongst other things to admit qualified foreign
practitioners into the Bar of England and Wales under Regulation 36 of the Consolidated Regulations
of The Inns of Court and The General Council of The Bar (November 2008). However, the Transferring Qualified Lawyers Panel of the Qualifications Committee may exempt the applicant from
all or part of the requirements for pupillage.

15 s.18(1), Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Court may, for the purpose of any one
case and subject to the following subsections, admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor any person who, if he was a citizen of, or a permanent resident in, Malaysia, would be eligible to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court.

16 s.18(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

17 Cherie Booth QC v. Attorney General, Malaysia & 5 others, 2006 [FC]

18 Para. 13 – 15, Ibid.

19 Para. 17, Ibid.

20 Para. 19, Ibid.

21 (1971) 2 MLJ 40

22 The court will consider the relevant issue in the particular case in light of the applicant’s special
qualifications and experience.

23 However, a foreign practitioner providing in-house legal advice who has not been admitted as an
advocate and solicitor in Malaysia will not be able to represent himself as being a qualified practitioner
to practise law locally. The limitations on foreign practitioners are limited to providing in-house legal
advice and not perform any act that would contravene s.37 of the Act.

24 For the procedures, visit http://www.imi.gov.my/eng/perkhidmatan/im_PegawaiDagang.asp

25 An arrangement for employment with a Malaysian law firm may be applicable if the requirements by
the Immigration Department of Malaysia are satisfied. However, the limitations under s.37 of the Act
will still apply because an employment with a Malaysian law firm does not necessarily enable a foreign
practitioner to represent himself as being a qualified practitioner to practise law locally.

If you still remember there was a big cry foul over CLP ruling by the UUM law graduates in September 2008. After we have reported it, we have received an open letter written by an annonymous reader (believing to be one of the UUM law graduate) highlighting his/her plight pending the completion of the recognisation process of UUM law degree by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB).

This morning, we have again received a comment posted by one of our reader, Ani Munirah, about the recognisation of the UUM law degree by the LPQB.

We reproduce the press statement below (together with the English translation version):

KENYATAAN AKHBAR PADA 23/4/2009

Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa pengiktirafan program Ijazah Sarjana Muda Undang-undang (Kepujian), oleh Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-undang, Malaysia telah pun diwartakan pada 16 April 2009 dalam warta kerajaan P.U.(B)119 berkenaan pemberitahuan di bawah Seksyen 3 Akta Profesion Undang-undang 1976 [Akta 166].

Notifikasi ini melayakkan pelajar Undang-undang yang telah tamat pengajian Ijazah Sarjana Muda Undang-undang (Kepujian), Universiti Utara Malaysia untuk menjalani latihan guaman mereka (chambering) bermula pada tarikh tersebut.

Universiti Utara Malaysia mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada semua pihak yang telah memberikan kerjasama dan sokongan dalam usaha untuk mendapat pengiktirafan profesional ini.

Daripada:
Prof. Madya Dr Asmah Laili Hj Yeon
Penolong Naib Canselor
Kolej Undang-undang, Kerajaan dan Pengajian Antarabangsa
Universiti Utara Malaysia

PRESS STATEMENT on 23 April 2009 (English transalation)

This is to inform that the recognition of Law Degree (Honours) programme by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board Malaysia have been gazetted on 16 April 2009 in government gazette P. U. (B)119 pertaining to notification under Section 3 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166].

This notification qualifies law student who has completed from the Law Degree (Honours) from University Utara Malaysia to undergo pupilage in chamber starting from the date mentioned herein.

University Utara Malaysia express thousands gratitude for those who have rendered cooperation and support in the effort of obtaining this professional recognition.

From:
Associates Professor Dr. Asmah Laili Hj Yeon
Assistant Vice-Chancellor
College of Law, Government and International Studies
Universiti Utara Malaysia

We have further made a call to UUM and have spoken to one of the officer who verified that the press statement was indeed true and we were informed that the same was also reported by 2 local Malay newspaper Kosmo on 18 April and Sinar Harian on 19 April 2009.

You may also read more about this news in the PROUUM Online.

Under section 10 of the Legal Professiona Act:
” The High Court may at its discretion and subject to the Act admits as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court - (a) any qualified person; and (b) any articled clerk who has complied with section 25…”

Section 3 of the Act defines the “qualified person” as any person who-
“(a) has pass the final examination leading to the degreee of Bachelor of Laws of the University Malaya, the University of Malaya in Singapore, the Univeristy of Singapore or the National University of Singapore;

(b) is a barrister-at-law of England;

(c) is in possession of such other qualification as may by notification in the Gazette be declared by the Board to be sufficient to make a person a qualified person for the purpose of this Act”

As such, this case is likely to fall under section 3 (c) of the Act and the relevant UUM law graduates may need to wait for the LPQB to declare them as qualified person before they can proceed to undergoing pupilage in chamber.

Based on our understanding, there were 3 batches of law graduates from UUM thus far. Is this meant that all the previous and future UUM law graduates with honours degree are now qualified to undergoing pupilage in chamber without the need to pass the CLP Exam? or it only applies to the law students who graduate after the gezzatted date?

(Reproduced with permission of the KL Bar Publications Committee. This article first appeared in Relevan Issue No. 0208)

There has been much discourse lately on whether there should be a common examination for all law graduates before they enter the legal profession. The President of the Malaysian Bar, Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevesan, was quoted by the New Sunday Times (April 6, 2006) as saying that there was a need for “…… a common examination for all law graduates entering the legal profession, irrespective of where they had pursued their undergraduate degrees.”

The former Minister of Law in the Prime Minister’s Department is reported to have said (in the New Straits Times, May 15, 2006) that “…… the government was looking into introducing a Bar Vocational Course and whether such a model, practiced in the United Kingdom, could be implemented locally.” Relevan speaks to Steven Thiru, Chairman of the Professional Standards and Development Committee of the Bar Council and a member of the Bar Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course, for his views on these developments :-

Q: Do we need a Common Bar Course (“CBC”) as a single entry point into the legal profession in Malaysia?
A: Yes. It would be an important step in our efforts to improve quality at the Bar. It would enable us to deal with the source of the problem, viz, the general deterioration in legal education. A uniform training scheme, in the form of the CBC, would certainly contribute towards enhancing standards.

Q: Is the Bar Council in favour of the CBC, particularly as a replacement of the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) and if so, what steps have the Bar Council taken?
A: The Bar Council has advocated for the CBC since the mid 1980’s. We have consistently taken the stand that the CBC should be the ultimate filter for entry into the legal profession. In May this year the Bar Council set up the Ad-Hoc Committee on the CBC. The Committee consist of experienced practitioners1, a senior academician (and formerly a senior practitioner)2 and the senior manager (standards) of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency3.

Q: Can you tell us about the work of the Bar Council’s Ad-Hoc Committee on the CBC?
A: The Committee’s primary task was to craft the syllabus and course content for the proposed CBC. In this regard, we were required to also consider and implement, where possible, the position taken by the Bar Council in the various working papers on the CBC. These were prepared between 1989 to 2003 and include the Morrison Report (1989), Seeking Quality : Bar Council’s Memorandum on Legal Education Reform And Qualifications For Entry Into The Legal Profession (1993), Report on the Review of the CLP (2002) and Bar Council Memorandum On Legal Education Reform (2003).

Q: Has the Committee completed its work?
A: Yes, we have. We have prepared a draft CBC framework which takes into account the Bar Council’s views over the past two decades. We have also made a number fresh proposals which we believe will revolutionise legal training and put us on par with other modern schemes the world-over. The draft CBC proposal is, however, still work-in-progress as it is pending approval by the Bar Council. It is to be tabled for debate at our next Council meeting on October 11, 2008.

Q: Can you tell us the approach adopted by the Committee?
A: As a starting point, the Committee considered the prevailing post-graduate professional training programmes (ie. for advocates and solicitors/barristers and solicitors) in other commonwealth jurisdictions, namely the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada. The experiences of these other jurisdictions were useful as a guideline. However, the Committee did not lose sight of the fact that the profession in Malaysia is fused. Thus, the draft CBC proposal is not a wholesale reproduction of any one of these other jurisdictions (eg. the Bar Vocational Programme in the United Kingdom). The Committee has nevertheless adopted certain critical aspects of these programmes and inculcated them into the draft CBC proposal.

Q: But, will the CBC be just another CLP with a new label?
A: It would not be. We were conscious of the weaknesses in the CLP. We found it to be outdated and it certainly does not, in our view, serve the requirements of the modern legal profession. Also, a survey of the developments in the other jurisdictions show that there has been a demonstrable shift in focus to practical training based on experiential learning and practical/vocational training. The CLP is, regrettably, still largely mired in the old school academic/black-letter law approach sans practical training.

Q: What is the underlying principle for the proposed CBC?
A: The main principle is that it will serve as a single entry point into the legal profession in Malaysia regardless of where the undergraduate qualification is obtained (locally or from foreign universities/colleges of law). There may of course be a list of recognized universities/colleges of law (local and international) which would be determined by the Legal Qualifying Board. This is consistent with the Bar Council’s stand that “…… the check on quality will not be at the undergraduate level ie. entry into law schools but at the professional entry level ie. professional qualifications for entry into the Bar. Thus the final check would be at the entry level into the legal profession.” (see the Bar Council’s Memorandum On Legal Education Reform of 3.1.2003)

Q: Has the Committee also drawn up the objectives of the proposed CBC?
A: Yes. There are broadly six primary objectives and they are as follows :-
(1) The focus of the CBC should be on skills/practical training (as opposed to testing on legal knowledge) to equip the “student-at-law” for legal practice in Malaysia.
(2) The vocational nature of the training will be complimented with academic (substantive law) elements, only where necessary. Thus, the CBC will not deal with substantive law, which should remain the domain of the universities/law colleges.
(3) The CBC must combine the modern experience of other commonwealth jurisdictions and our peculiar requirements (in a fused profession, with the inherent weaknesses).
(4) The CBC should prepare the “student-at-law” for the first two years of practice.
(5) The CBC should also enable the “student-at-law” to choose (if they so desire) to become either an advocate (litigation) or a solicitor (non-litigation). This is achieved by giving the student-at-law the option to fashion their training to cater for their choice.
(6) The CBC must deal with some of the shortcomings in pupillage and enhance the training during pupillage.

Q: What would be the course structure for the CBC?
A: We have proposed that the CBC be conducted in five semesters over a period of twenty months (inclusive of pupillage). In this regard, the first three semesters will entail full time study whilst the remaining two semesters will be conducted part-time together with pupillage. Further, Semester 1, 2 and 3 will consists of compulsory subjects. In semesters 4 and 5 (where the “students-at-law” would be undergoing pupillage), there would be a mixture of compulsory subjects and electives. As noted earlier, by their choice of the electives, the “student-at-law” (now pupil) can start tailoring their training to suit their preferred choice of practice (litigation or non litigation).

Q: Will the CBC be the death knell for pupillage?
A: The Committee is of the view that pupillage should be retained albeit with a reduction in its duration. In this regard, the Committee has proposed that CBC should run partly parallel with pupillage. As stated above, the student-at-law will undertake the CBC on a full-time basis in the first three semesters. They will then begin their pupillage and continue with semesters four and five of the CBC on a part-time basis. The incorporation of pupillage into the CBC will hopefully deal with some of the shortcomings in the training of our pupils. It will allow pupils to easily compare the level of training that they are receiving from their masters with their peers. Moreover, if there are weaknesses, the dual effect of “peer-learning” and participation in the part-time CBC programme would provide a safety net.

Q: How would the CBC deal with the crescendo of complaints that we hear about the legal profession today?
A: It is a matter that we considered carefully. Thus, the first three semesters essentially deal with aptitude, ethical values, basic legal skills and core areas of practice. These are the bedrock of legal practice in Malaysia and are intended to ensure that those coming into the Bar have the requisite qualities. In this regard, it is envisaged that there should be a stringent assessment system that would sieve out those who do not possess these fundamental requirements. In other words, it is not a given that all “students-at-law” would make the grade and complete the CBC.

Q: What are subjects that the CBC will cover?
A: We have put together an array of subjects that we feel will meet the objectives that I spoke of earlier. In this regard, some of the main subjects that we have proposed are : Practical Aspects of Malaysian Law, Legal Interpretation Skills (Constitution, Statutes and Case Law) and Practice Management Skills (in Semester 1), Legal Language (English and Bahasa Malaysia for law) and Communication Skills (including IT skills), Lawyering Skills (eg. Techniques of analysis) and Practical Legal Research, Legal Ethics and Professionalism, Business and Solicitors Accounts, Interviewing and Client Counselling Skills, Opinion Writing (in Semester 2) and core subjects such as Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Drafting Skills, Evidence, Real Property Practice, Commercial and Corporate Practice, Introduction to Advocacy, Negotiation Skills, Alternative Dispute Resolution-Mediation and Arbitration (in Semesters 3 and 4)4. Finally, in Semester 5 we have proposed Remedies and Enforcement/Execution Proceedings as well as a host of other electives5.

Q: How do you expect the CBC to be delivered?
A: The Committee has also considered the mode of delivery and the assessment system. We have discovered that most jurisdictions have moved away from the traditional lecture-seminar/tutorial as the mode/s of delivery of the CBC. Thus, the modern approach (as part of experiential learning) is to have a mixture of lecture-seminar/tutorials, on-line learning, DVD’s, practical and industrial training. This should result in cost savings and it would also impact on the logistical requirements for the CBC.

Q: What about the teaching staff and infrastructure to support the CBC?
A: It is envisaged that the teaching staff will consist of qualified members of the Bar, judges (sitting and retired) and qualified academics from the various law faculties/private colleges. There should also be provision for foreign teaching staff, whether on an ad-hoc or permanent basis. Further, in connection with finances, the Bar Council has decided that the CBC should be run on a non-profit basis. Thus, public funding from the government would be required to set up the necessary infrastructure and to cover administration costs.

Q: When do you expect the CBC come into place?
A: We anticipate it will take between 4 to 6 years for the CBC to be implemented. This is because, inter-alia, there is a requirement for dedicated course materials, which are presently unavailable. We must also develop a training programme for those who are to be engaged to teach the CBC. As for logistics, in the interim we would need to use the available facilities in the law faculties in our public universities in the Klang Valley. However, we must look at a purpose built college (eg. the College of Law, Sydney) to cater for the CBC in the future.

————————————————————————————-

1 Hendon Mohamed, Prasad Abraham, Sheila De Costa, G.K. Ganesan, Ken St. James, Mariette Peters, Murad Ali, Roger Tan, Dato’ Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Nahendran Navaratnam and S.S. Muker
2 Adjunct Professor R. Rajeswaran of UiTM
3 Dr. Rozlini Mary Fernandez Chung
4 Some of the other proposed electives in Semester 4 are Advanced Evidence, Advanced Civil Procedure, Advanced Criminal Procedure, Advanced Real Property Practice, Advanced Corporate and Commercial Practice, Wills and Probate Practice, Insolvency Practice and Family Law Practice.
5 Some of the proposed electives in Semester 5 are Administrative Law Practice, Advocacy in Criminal Law, Industrial Law Practice, Intellectual Property Law Practice, Human Rights Litigation and Introduction to Islamic Banking and Finance.