Very little to zero litigation case in Malaysia to even practice.

Most lawyers here practice family law, sales and purchase and M&A.

You don't see much criminal/commercial/etc litigation here.

Besides, if you listen to Academiclawyer, since the chance to get employed overseas are like 0,001% based on his statistics, I don't think studying law locally is a good option as there's nothing much to practice in Malaysia

Err, I don't think this is correct. Litigation is a big thing in Msia. Lawyers take every little opportunity to bring cases to court. Even if you lose, clients bear the cost anyway. But litigation in Msia is 99% procedures and 1% substance.

In M'sia, which area of the law is good to venture into ? base on what you said, a case is often won because of one erred in law and procedures ? Thanks.

We have three law reports which publish several volumes a year. They do not publish all the the cases but merely those that are deemed to be of some importance. Of these reported cases we have an unusually large number dealing with procedures.

I think more important is what you like doing. For example, coveyancing may make you good money (assuming you have the connections). But I will never do it as I find it boring as hell.

This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 18 2013, 09:08 AM

Many people including lawyers are saying that it is no longer a noble neither good one to enter into. hence, the nest question is is there still a hope to practice in Malaysia ? Let's take the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature into the discussion.

Name me 1 litigation case that's significant enough for one to learn from in Malaysia.

The last major Litigation case I read was regarding the PwC scandal. Other than that, it's all bs made up by people, litigation involving government agency that are backed by powerful people, fraudulent case against a former DPM charged with Sodomy.

How much chance can a young graduate practice litigation in this country? You tell me.

If it's 99% procedure, might as well be a paralegal.

Learning without substance = Nothing to learn at all

Might as well do other more interesting courses then.

I personally think that a substantial number of lawyers and the judiciary to be seriously lacking in many essential qualities (there are, of course, exceptions). I base this on my personal observation and countless hours plowing through court judgments.

But whether legal practice has a future is a different issue. Even in a terrible and mediocre system, people find ways to get around things and make good money. If you do reasonably well, you should become a partner in about 7 to 10 years. You will start recouping your education cost and start making a profit if you can last that long. The long term prospect is better than in many other professions.

Define "litigation". We refer to litigation as an area of practice, not a legal discipline (unless you count court procedures as a legal discipline). Every case that goes to court is litigated to some extent. Every reported case was litigated. So tell me what kind of "Litigation case" do you want to hear about?

The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation

I'm curious to see, what interesting thing you can learn in Malaysia. Seriously.

Since you said can practice a certain amount of litigation, example please?

From my point of view, there's nothing to be practice.

Most of my lawyer friends are doing paperwork pushing till 10pm in Malaysia compared to others that are practicing elsewhere in the world.

Essentially, as you have said, the process of bringing a case to court (or even any form of dispute resolution) is litigation. You have noted that most your lawyer friends do paperwork till late night. That is litigation. Whether they deal with substance or procedure, that is litigation. And they make money from this. This refutes your earlier point that there is nothing to litigate. Whether the practice itself is meaningful is a different question.

Mate, can you explain the terminology of legal discipline as compares to area of practice ? Thanks.

The law is generally divided into different "subjects" (or legal disciplines), eg contract, tort, property, criminal, constitutional and administrative law, etc. This is how the law is studied in law schools. Each of these subjects have their fair share of issues that may give rise to disputes. Whether the dispute that needs to be resolved arises from contractual or criminal context (which are two very different areas), it is done by litigation (broadly defined here to include alternative dispute resolutions). So it is more meaningful to say what exactly one does, eg commercial litigation or criminal litigation. Of course, some lawyers try to do everything.

"is there still a hope to practice in Malaysia ?"

What do you mean by this?

Meaning I am looking at the Executive, Juduciary and Legislature context. What's your view as you are a practicing lawyer ?

Please take this discussion elsewhere. Cheers!

Please take this discussion elsewhere. Cheers!

You will still have lawyers around. Else, who will plead before the judiciary or even prepare the paperwork or backend work for govt contracts, parliamentary practices, etc?

Anyway, let's stick with basic guide to being a lawyer and not something as subjective as our views in light of the above issues.

I was informed by a prospective law student that the qualifying board accepts diploma from certain colleges in Malaysia as an equivalent to STPM or A-levels for purposes of obtaining a law degree.

Please do verify independently with the qualifying board on your respective qualifications.

Is this not "useful information for prospective law students, a basic guide to become a lawyer"?

I think we should be allowed to carry on discussion anything pertaining to Law related issues/questions to avoid multiple postings in various threads in LYN. Thanks.