There is a serious need to review the CLP, a compulsory qualification for law graduates with law degrees that do not fall within the list recognized by the Legal Profession Act 1972.
When it was introduced over 40 years ago, the CLP was meant as a temporary measure to meet an exigency of that time caused by policy changes made to professional admission procedures in England and Wales. Traditionally, the legal profession in this country has aligned itself with the style and methods of the legal profession in those countries. This has also been the case with the profession's attitude to legal education and the CLP particularly. One consequence of this alignment is that it has fostered a public view that the local profession is hierarchically linked to the profession in England and Wales. It has led clients, including some high-profile ones, to seek lawyers from England giving the impression that foreign lawyers are better than the local ones. The truth is that practitioners in this country can match the best in the world. The local Bar must look more closely at how the profession serves local needs and how it is perceived locally.
Of all the professions in this country, none can match the way the Bar has stood up in defence of civil rights and government excesses. The courage they show in these instances exceeds by far their vocational obligations. They have risen against iniquities and bad government at great cost to individual lawyers and the profession as a whole. This courage will wane and disappear in the profession unless new generations are inspired to carry that special burden that lawyers bear as champions of justice and fairness. One great weakness of the CLP is that by concentrating on the so-called practical subjects, it has ignored trends in this country that are progressively undermining the legal system. A qualifying course for new entrants into the profession must create an awareness of these trends so that they can continue the extra-mural work of lawyers as defenders of justice in our society.
At a practical level, the Legal Profession Qualifications Board (QB) owes a duty to intending practitioners to update the existing qualifying procedures which now also include a chambering period of nine months supervised by a lawyer of standing.
The CLP has gone through many embarrassing controversies. In my opinion, as someone who has been in legal education for over 30 years, the exams do not match the needs of either the graduates or the profession. It is an outdated method introduced without much thought and continued without serious review. Professional preparedness is best acquired through professional training, which must be integrated into the chambering period. Chambering students must be trained with the essential skills of lawyering so that they can function efficiently as lawyers as soon as they are called to the Bar. Any course designed to prepare students for practice must also consider the different learning backgrounds these students come from. Automatic recognition of 'local' graduates ignores the great differences that prevail across local law schools and their graduate output. It also glosses over the prevailing attitudinal differences to legal education in our law schools and the law generally.
The profession needs an education council to continually monitor legal education and practice and champion these causes. This has been on the agenda for over thirty years, but from about the same time the CLP was introduced. More than four attempts have been made but none were successful. Neither the Bar nor the QB is qualified (nor expected) to decide on how a lawyer is to be trained, particularly when neophytes come from such diverse educational and attitudinal backgrounds. This is a task best left to a legal education council.
What is immediately required, however, is an examination of how the CLP exams and their procedures are adversely affecting law graduates aspiring to practice law in this country. The professional exams as currently designed and executed do not pass the test of legal fairness as expressed in the many axioms that are familiar to lawyers.
Well said Kumar. Let’s hope the right people read this
ReplyDeleteThe CLP needs to be revamped to be in line with the local law degrees final year courses (both public varsities and private). One should not ignore on what is being done by the Law College for newly appointed Legal officers under the purview of the AGC. In view of the developments of Human Rights, International Trade & Finance; Public, Private & Criminal International Law would have to be incorporated even if at their procedural processes are therefore essential at the final year curriculum of the graduating courses as well as for the CLP programme.
ReplyDeleteEven there's a dire need for a more serious review of the law curriculum which nowadays need more in depth coverage on a balanced Jurisprudence on Climate Change, Sustained Development and Political Legitimacy and the Rule of Law?
Mr Menon, as a holder of Certificate of Legal Practice myself and now a legal practitioner I agree with your views. The CLP did not teach me the practical aspect in fact it was just another programme that test on the theoretical aspect of legal practice and also memory power. Now being in practice for over 2 decades I can positively say that the skills that I and my fellow brethren lawyers who have passed the CLP examination acquired practice skill during our pupilage and also during our early years of practice. All of us were groping in the dark when we started our pupilage. Some are lucky to have had very good pupil-master who were willing to guide and teach them the practical aspect. For the unlucky ones their struggles were an open secret. I sincerely hope your view/suggestions reach the eyes of the people concern.
ReplyDelete