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

Abstract

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.