The journey of students at the University of Malta who enrolled for the Bachelor of Laws course back in 2012, and more recently the Master of Advocacy course, has been far from smooth.
In their first year, students were faced with an Introduction to Legal History exam that raised so many justifiable concerns and complaints that every single student, including those who had passed, were offered the opportunity to retake the exam as a first sit in September. Later, in their third year, students were presented with an exam question about a legal notice that did not exist when sitting for a compulsory Industrial Legislation and Employment Law exam.
Although the overall course journey has been littered with other incidents and unnecessary hurdles that should have been avoided, the point of this article goes beyond highlighting previous faults and instead intends to shed light on these law students’ current and primary concerns.
Having barely survived through the newly redesigned and experimental five year course, which is now in line with the Bologna process, students are still faced with substantial uncertainties about their professional future and career. Rather than expressing my personal opinion, all law student organisations on campus were forwarded the following question:
What is your organisation’s position in the light of the issues and doubts that current Master of Advocacy students are facing, particularly in relation to the final professional title to be acquired and warrant?
Each organisation’s response on the matter is quoted below and the responses have been presented in alphabetical order as per the organisation’s name.
ELSA Malta
ELSA Malta believes that students should be given what they were promised. Throughout the past years, ELSA Malta, other respective law student organisations, student representatives and students themselves, have enquired on the matter numerous times. Although the changes being implemented make sense on a holistic level, there should have been more planning and a better coordinated effort.
With regard to the professional title to be acquired, and more importantly the warrant, ELSA Malta believes that the uncertainty and the fact that no information was given to the fifth year law students prior to them entering the law course, are reasons enough to treat the fifth year students as the sixth years in terms of the professional title and the warrant exam.
The upcoming bill, if enacted prior to the warrant exam in December, should cater for those provisions that impact the fifth year students to allow them to sit for the warrant exam in December 2017 and to also maintain the professional “Dr” title. There is a legal concept, known as legitimate expectation, which in this matter has not been followed. Give the fifth year students the certainty they deserve.
GhSL
Due to the fact that the meeting with the dean regarding this issue has not yet taken place, a definitive statement from GhSL cannot be given at the point in time. However, what can be said at this point in time is that whatever the outcome, GhSL always put the needs of the student first. The need for clarity and certainty is not only essential to those studying for their Master in Advocacy, but also to those who are in earlier stages of law course. It is for this reason that the organisation is dedicated to protecting the students’ interests in this matter.
The organisation will be scheduling a meeting with the minister concerned so that all stakeholders on this issue are met with and are given the opportunity to discuss the issue. Once this meeting has taken place we will be able to proceed from there and take all possible actions in order to create certainty for students and safeguard their interests.
Junior Chamber of Advocates
From its inception, the Junior Chamber of Advocates (JCA) has sought clarification with respect to these concerns. JCA has always been at the forefront in arguing in favour of the Doctorate title being awarded to all law students, particularly if one takes into account the legitimate expectation all law students had when they enrolled in the law course.
Unfortunately, despite publishing guidelines in collaboration with the Chamber of Advocates concerning the Prattika requirement, students are still uncertain as to how they will be affected with the enactment of the Lawyers Act. Although JCA looks favourably upon its introduction, which aims at the betterment of the legal profession, it emphasizes the importance that this should only be done with the proper safeguards for those students currently enrolled in the Master of Advocacy and LLD courses. Any changes introduced by this Act should only be made applicable with respect to students who are yet to start the law course. Ultimately, this would ensure a smooth transition, in which clarity is achieved and the current confusing situation done away with.
In the following weeks, the Junior Chamber of Advocates shall be following up these issues and seeking clarification from the Authorities concerned. It is high time that students finally get clear answers as to what they are to expect in their immediate future.
