The Legal Profession Act 1976 mandates a nine-month pupillage in Peninsular Malaysia for admission as an advocate and solicitor, disallowing prior pupillage in Sarawak.

Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 36 - Admission of advocates and solicitors - Requirement of nine months of pupillage - Petitioner served 12 months of pupillage in Sarawak, but failed to meet conditions for admission under the LPA as it does not apply to Sarawak without modification - Petitioner's application for admission was objected to on grounds of non-compliance with pupillage requirements - Court found that the pupillage period must commence from the filing date of the petition, and no exemption was granted - Petitioner cannot use his Sarawak pupillage for admission under the LPA. (Paras 27, 66, 68)

(B) Pupillage - Purpose and requirements - The purpose of pupillage is to provide practical training under a qualified master in active practice within the jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the experience must be within Peninsular Malaysia to fulfill the requirements of the LPA. (Paras 35, 64)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Malaysian citizen, applied for admission as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya after completing pupillage in Sarawak. His application was objected to due to failure to serve the required pupillage period under the LPA.

Findings of Court:
The Petitioner could not count his Sarawak pupillage towards the admission under the LPA, as the Act does not apply to Sarawak without a modification order.

Issues: Whether the Petitioner can use his pupillage period served in Sarawak for admission as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner must fulfill the nine-month pupillage requirement under the LPA, which does not recognize his prior pupillage in Sarawak due to the jurisdictional limitations of the LPA.

Result: Petition denied.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's background and application details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. qualifications for admission under lpa (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. material contradictions in petitioner's forms (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. remote pupillage not valid under lpa (Para 15 , 16)
5. interpretation of pupillage requirements under lpa (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. confidential report and character inquiries (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. issue of pupillage period for admission (Para 26)
8. provisions for admission under lpa (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
9. purpose of pupillage in legal training (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
10. applicability of lpa to sabah and sarawak (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
11. distinction of prior cases and current issues (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
12. discretion of bar council for exemption (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
13. court's decision on petitioner's admission (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction And Background Facts

[1] The Petitioner is a Malaysian citizen residing in Miri, Sarawak. He graduated from the Multimedia University, Malaysia with LLB Honours. He read in chambers of one Mr Firdaus bin Morshidi in Miri from 2 August 2021 to 2 August 2022 and was subsequently admitted to the Sarawak Bar on 30 September 2022.

[2] On 3 August 2022, the Petitioner filed 'an application to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya at the Kuala Lumpur High Court (encl 1) under s 15 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA).

[3] Under s 12 of the LPA, the Petitioner is required to undergo a pupillage as a pupil in chambers for 9 months from 3 August 2022 to 2 May 2023 (Pupillage Period) unless exempted for such period under s 13 of the LPA.

[4] However, before such Pupillage Period was completed the Petitioner filed his Forms 6, 7 and 8 on 30 January 2023 and did not complete the requisite Pupillage under the LPA.

[5] The Petition was jointly objected to by the Honourable Attorney General (AG), the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (KLBC) on the ground that as of 30 January 2023 the Petitioner has failed to serve the prescribed period of Pupillage under the LPA.

[6] After the hearing, I allowed the preliminary objections raised by the Honourable AG, the Bar Council and the KLBC with liberty to apply and my full grounds now follow.

Contention Of Parties

Qualifications For Admission

[7] Section 11 of the LPA provides that a qualified person may be admitted as an advocate and solicitor in the High Court of Malaya if he satisfies, among others, two conditions. Firstly, if he "has satisfactorily served in Malaysia the prescribed period of pupillage for qualified person". Section 12(2) of the LPA further provides that the prescribed period of pupillage shall be nine months.

[8] Another condition is, that the Petitioner must serve his period of pupillage with an advocate and solicitor who is and has been in active practice in Malaysia for a total period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of commencement of his pupillage. This is provided under s 13(1) of the LPA.

[9] As to this, the Petitioner has maintained that he has satisfied the conditions since he had served 12 months of pupillage from 2 August 2021 to 2 August 2022 under his master, Mr Firdaus bin Morshidi, an advocate and solicitor who is in active practice in Sarawak. The Petitioner also submitted that his master was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on 30 November 2001.

[10] The Petitioner submitted that he had served the prescribed pupillage period under a master who is in active practice in Malaysia. To support his argument, he referred to M Samantha Murthi v. The Attorney-General & Ors [1982] 1 MLRA 91; [1982] 2 MLJ 126; [1982] CLJ 213 and Majlis Peguam v. Sunil Singh Gill 2002 MarsdenLR 496 ; 2004 MarsdenLR 1980 ; .

Material Contradiction In Forms 1, 6 And The Certificate Of Diligence

[

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 1301

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURRE: MOHD MUSTAQIM MURADI[Advocate And Solicitor No: WA-18-1101-08/2022]

The Legal Profession Act 1976 mandates a nine-month pupillage in Peninsular Malaysia for admission as an advocate and solicitor, disallowing prior pupillage in Sarawak.

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RE: MOHD MUSTAQIM MURADI
[Advocate And Solicitor No: WA-18-1101-08/2022]