Question is: What do you want to do - career/work wise?

I don't think you should take any such certificate unless you're sure you want to practice in that area. It'll be a waste of time, effort and money. Both O&G and Shipping are niche.

Would be better to concentrate on your LLB and graduate with a good degree. Thereafter, join a good firm that does a wide range of work (or a specialised area if you're certain on your choices) and let them know that you're interested in doing shipping etc. If it is really what you think you want to do, then you may consider taking up relevant courses at that stage.

I don't get it. Why are you upset? You want to practice in Singapore or Hong Kong? What do you want us to enlighten you on?

If you intend to practice, then doing the bptc is more beneficial than the CLP, both in terms of skills development and general perception. Plus, a couple of Inns have a pretty strong local alumni, which can be beneficial.

Hope so? What are your concerns really? Did you research before you enrolled for the course? Are you sure you want to try out practice? Did you do internships at law firms?

Finding a job in the legal profession is not difficult. Turnover is pretty high.

Just get good grades and your options would be potentially wider.

similar question to previous.

they are so different in terms of content. "job prospect differences"? it doesn't really matter what subjects you read during your LLB...it does more to serve you in determining which areas you think you might be interested in.

I chose juris, company, succession and EU for my third year in the external UOL LLB.

no relevance to local law. wanted option to do bvc, but decided against it.

bvc = called bptc at present.

i was 80% certain I wanted to do corporate work, so didn't want to spend an extra rm80 to 100k on something I don't need. Took CLP instead. But just did it, in case I changed my mind throughout the year. options are important at times.

err, no, meant did eu law in case i change my mind. obviously, if money is not an issue, i would still recommend doing bptc over clp, even if you intend to do corporate. i forgot 80% of the things i learnt in clp within a few weeks from the exam.

banking and finance. i do mainly syndicated/bilateral loans (incl acquisition/project financing) and bond/sukuk issuances. I do some other work here and there (advisory and the occassional involvement in mergers & acquisitions), but not worth mentioning.

for me, EU law was tough.


a lil over 2 years. pupillage was mostly liti work, and I didn't like it...after pupillage, switched to corporate.

after being called where? and which part of Australia? Solicitor or Barrister? not sure whether the priestly 11 still apply since the last time I checked about 3 years ago.


The small firms may be willing to consider this, the mid-sized or large firms won't be open to that idea. Even then, you should check whether the rules applicable to pupils allow for this.

Yes, that is right.

Very few small firms can do such work, not only because the partners in such firms do not have sufficient experience or capacity to handle the same, but large MNCs, GLCs and the likes prefer bigger law firms because of professional indemnity and continuity concerns. Some of these large scale financing (notably project financing) can run up to a couple of years.

Yes that is right along with any other experience/qualifications that you may have. Also together with other factors which they had assessed during the interview I presume.

Some firms will only consider those with a minimum of 2:1 unless that person has strong prior working experience or other qualifications (or otherwise comes highly recommended). If you're a straight up 2:2 with a BPTC/CLP, certain firms might not bother giving a second look at your application.

This post has been edited by alsree786: Oct 7 2013, 06:13 PM

Challenge? hmmm, objectively, the long hours I presume (especially in mid-sized to large firms). You will need stamina. Lawyers are service providers, and are frontliners. Even after 30 years of practice, you still gotta do what your client says and wants and the market is competitive, and will be more so once the foreign firms come in, even though their licences are restricted to certain areas of work.

There are a variety of factors that result in long hours. When I say long hours, I mean a minimum of 70-80 hour work weeks. Honestly, lawyers in Malaysia don't get paid that much, and we're probably around the same as in house lawyers up to a certain level, so when you put in so many more hours a week, just be sure that that is what you want to be doing. My friend for example is an in-house lawyer. He does a 9am to 6.30pm most days with the occassional 9am to 7.30pm or 8pm. I do a 9am to 9pm most days with the occassional 9am to 1am.

And even after putting in those hours, you realise that there is a whole bunch of things you don't really know.

There is no shortage of lawyers, just shortage of good, focused lawyers. But I think what is equally important is that Malaysia lacks good legal support staff. When you start practicing, you'll realise how important a good conveyancing clerk, or IP executive or even your secretary is. Every lawyer only has so many hours a day.

Sure, no problem. Just hope my insight is taken as one person's view and experience.

It was by default actually. I wanted to do something else, but well, I decided to do law since it was an available option. I don't regret my decision now though.

Yes, that's alot of numbers, but alot are crap. See, its fine to make mistakes here and there (we're all human), but there must be certain core attributes that make or can help your mentor mould you into a good lawyer. Remember, it is a business at the end of it all. You gotta know business and think like a businessman, from marketing, to profiling, to delegating, to strategising, to prioritising, to communicating, to branding.

Well, I wouldn't put leaving the legal profession in the same line as "lead to their failures".

Yes, a lack of those traits/skills. For a pupil, the least important of the four traits/skills you mentioned, imho, is actually knowledge. You may have learnt the basics in Uni, but the basics are never enough to address most, if not all real legal issues. And being a student of English Law (or whatever foreign law), doesn't make it any easier. Most important may be attitude.

I did not do the BPTC nor did I really read much on it.

But my take is, if money is not a concern, do the bptc. exposure would be better, and it is practical knowledge. The clp is a pretty useless programme and not worth the stress. I have done ACCA and the UOL LLB, but the CLP is more stressful than either of them, imho. plus, if you do bptc, you will have the benefit of a stronger alumni, especially (i think) for Middle and Lincoln's in Malaysia...seem to have pretty good alumni here.

Yes, that is right. Decided accounting wasn't for me although I was already a full ACCA member at one point.


Practicing in a mid sized firm in KL. Wouldn't want to disclose my firm name here, although you could easily find that out.

Yes, the CLP is not easy because of the sheer bulk. Usually students fail not because it was difficult but usually because they just couldn't remember. If the LPQB could spread the exams over a lil longer period, with say 2 days in between each paper, the passing rates would be much better coz its 90% memory work.