Delegated Power and Regulatory Failure: A Governance-Based Analysis of LPQB’s Ultra Vires Abolition of Articled Clerkship

This article examines the Legal Profession Qualifying Board’s (“LPQB”) 1985 administrative decision to abolish articled clerkship, a statutory pathway to admission expressly preserved under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”). Although no legislative amendment or gazetted rule ever eliminated this route, the legal profession operated for nearly four decades as if articled clerkship had been lawfully discontinued. Drawing upon the theoretical frameworks of Ogus (delegation and accountability), Baldwin (regulatory standards and legitimacy), and Black (interpretive drift in decentred regulatory environments), this article argues that the LPQB’s action constitutes a multi-layered regulatory failure. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Fahri, Azzat & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor v Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-Undang (2024), later left undisturbed by the Federal Court, confirms that the LPQB acted ultra vires and exceeded the limits of delegated authority conferred by Parliament. Through doctrinal and theoretical analysis, this article demonstrates how institutional drift, opacity in regulatory practices, weak oversight mechanisms, and the absence of procedural safeguards contributed to decades of systemic misunderstanding. It concludes by proposing governance reforms to strengthen accountability, transparency, and statutory fidelity in Malaysia’s professional regulatory landscape.

Delegated, Power, Regulatory, Failure

1. Baldwin, R. (1995). Rules and government. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2012). Understanding regulation: Theory, strategy, and practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Black, J. (2001). Decentring regulation: Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a “post regulatory” world. Current Legal Problems, 54(1), 103–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/54.1.103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cane, P. (2011). Administrative law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hood, C. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age (with Helen Margetts). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Mashaw, J. L. (1983). Bureaucratic justice: Managing social security disability claims. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Parker, C. (2002). The open corporation: Effective self-regulation and democracy. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Scott, C. (2000). Accountability in the regulatory state. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00148 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ogus, A. (1994). Regulation: Legal form and economic theory. Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Malaysian Statutes [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Legal Profession Act 1976 (Act 166). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Malaysian Cases [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fahri, Azzat & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor v Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-Undang [2024] MLJU 213 (High Court) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fahri, Azzat & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor v Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-Undang [2025] 1 MLJ 671 (Court of Appeal) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-Undang v Fahri, Azzat & Co (Sebuah Firma) & Anor, 7 October 2025 (Federal Court) (unreported). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.