Does Laidlaw possess unique expertise unavailable locally?

Question

Accepted Answer

Laidlaw's Claim of Unique Expertise is Contested by Legal Bodies

The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee has argued that British lawyer Jonathan Laidlaw does not possess special qualifications or experience that are unavailable among Malaysian lawyers, and therefore he is unsuited to represent Datuk Seri Najib Razak in his final appeal. This assertion is echoed by the prosecution and the Malaysian Bar, all of whom are objecting to Laidlaw's application to practice in Malaysia for this specific case. They contend that Najib's current lead defence counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, is adequately qualified and experienced to handle the appeal.
Legal Requirements for Foreign Practitioners

Laidlaw filed an application on May 31 to be admitted to practice in Malaysia, citing Section 18 of the Legal Profession Act. However, the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee stated in an affidavit that Laidlaw does not meet the legal requirements stipulated under this section for admission as a lawyer in Malaysia. The committee specifically argued that Laidlaw does not possess any distinct qualifications or experience that cannot be found among legal practitioners within Malaysia.
Sufficiency of Local Counsel's Expertise

The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee highlighted that Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is well-positioned to represent Najib in the final SRC International Sdn Bhd appeal. Shafee has served as Najib's lead defence lawyer throughout the High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings for this case and related applications. The committee's affidavit noted that there is no indication that Shafee has lost confidence in his ability to argue the appeal or that Najib has lost confidence in Shafee's competence.
Scope of Shafee's Experience

Furthermore, the committee pointed to Shafee's extensive experience as a former deputy public prosecutor handling criminal prosecutions and high-profile cases until 1983. As a private lawyer, Shafee has reportedly managed complex corruption cases and dealt with constitutional issues pertinent to fair trial rights, alongside experience in commercial law. The committee also raised doubts about a foreign practitioner, who did not handle the initial trial or appeal and lacks local knowledge, being able to effectively assist the Federal Court.
Nature of the Appeal's Legal Issues

The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee argued that the central issues expected in the final SRC appeal involve the interpretation of Malaysian law and Malaysia's Federal Constitution. They asserted that Laidlaw does not appear to possess special qualifications or experience in these specific legal domains. The committee emphasised that numerous Malaysian lawyers are competent and possess the requisite qualifications and experience to argue such legal matters effectively, with Shafee being a prime example.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does Laidlaw possess unique expertise unavailable locally?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends