The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
I am writing to correct the article that appeared in the 18 July issue of The Lawyer, 'Malaysia orders probe into UK Law courses', which misrepresents the current situation regarding UK law degrees offered to Malaysian students.
What the article describes as a 'probe' is in fact a survey being undertaken into all UK law degrees offered by all universities both 'old' and 'new'.
The survey covers both full-time and distance learning LLB provision and needs to be viewed in the context of similar surveys being undertaken of Australian, New Zealand and Canadian law degrees offered to Malaysian students.
There is therefore no 'probe' into any particular UK university or particular law degree course whether offered by a UK or any other university.
There can be no justification for making reference to the University of Wolverhampton or its LLB (Honours) Degree in any mode of study.
Your citation of my comments do not reflect what was said by me to the reporter. I did not say that the Wolverhampton degree was under investigation, since it is not, and nor did I say that I expected the Malaysian authorities to prescribe a minimum pass standard for distance learning courses. I echoed a view widely held among heads of university law schools that a minimum pass standard may be prescribed for all UK law degrees for students wishing to read for the Malaysian Certificate in Legal Practice Course.
Of the other inaccuracies in the article, I will refer only to three. In respect of the visit of the Holborn College Registrar to the university, the purpose thereof was not, as stated, "to take part in talks over the enquiry" but to attend an examinations committee meeting which had been scheduled since the commencement of the 1993/94 academic year. The second matter with which I take issue is the reference to the re-sit entitlement of students on the Wolverhampton LLB as compared with that entitlement on the University of London's External Programme.
The facts are that Wolverhampton students are entitled to a maximum of three re-sits over eight subjects. This is, in fact, more stringent than the University of London's external degree re-sit regulations.
The third inaccuracy relates to Holborn College, which continues to offer University of London External Programmes as it has for the past 25 years.