Earlier this year, on 13 January 2026, I co-hosted a webinar on AI featuring a prominent legal educator (Professor Jason Chua, then Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Malaya), a Global AI Compliance Director (Tarishni Arumugam from London-based global insurance company AON), a senior corporate executive (Riyad Dahlan from Mastercard Malaysia), and a partner from a specialist law firm. (Natalie Oi of Oi & Oi based in Kuala Lumpur).
The modest objective of the one-hour webinar was to understand how AI is being deployed in these key areas. I was able to accomplish what I wanted to do and have a fulfilling time.
As a former lawyer, I was most interested in what the law partner speakers had to say.
Mr. Oi’s presentation was comprehensive. She explained why AI is important in private practice and drew attention to its primary uses, risks and responsibilities associated with the use of AI, and the regulatory and compliance landscape in Malaysia.
One important point is that while AI may be useful in legal practice, it cannot replace personal judgment.
Malaysian Chief Justice Datuk Seri Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Saleh reiterated the importance of human judgment when making judicial decisions. (Media interview, December 5, 2026)
The Malaysian Bar Council should consider doing more to address the risks associated with the use of AI for the benefit of the public, who often cannot distinguish between legal practice and other professional services.
Legal services are not tangible products
Legal services are not tangible products, but require the application of professional judgment to unique factual situations. In our eagerness to adopt AI, this important distinguishing factor is often overlooked.
For example, if a client seeks advice about a possible breach of contract, the lawyer’s first primary role is to assess whether a legally binding contract exists and whether litigation is viable. This evaluation, or professional evaluation, requires careful scrutiny and evaluation of the facts, circumstances, and legal principles.
AI tools such as ChatGPT can be useful for research, but relying on them without rigorous validation poses significant risks. Uncritical use of AI-generated output can lead to flawed legal arguments, waste of judicial resources, and potentially subject to professional sanctions. Such incidents are no longer hypothetical; they are already happening.
The use of AI is unstoppable, so the responsibility to reduce risk lies with many stakeholders. Topping the list are law schools and the Malaysian Bar Council.
Malaysian Bar Council must act to address these risks
As the body that regulates the practice and conduct of lawyers in Malaysia, the Bar Council is vested with powers and responsibilities.
On the issue of AI deployment risk, the Bar Council has issued two circulars providing guidance. In its first circular published in November 2023, supplemented by one published in July 2025, the Bar Council reminded its members of the professional obligations and legal risks arising from the use of AI.
Beyond these circulars, it is unclear what the Bar Council intends to do.
Given the large number of law graduates Malaysia produces today, the need for the Bar Council to act quickly cannot be overstated. In addition, there are also foreign graduates who aim to gain admission to the Malaysian Bar. However, a general comment is that the quality of legal education domestically and internationally is uneven. Unlike some countries that have national standards to exclude unqualified law graduates from entering the legal profession, Malaysia has no such standards. tapis (screening or filtering).
In Malaysia, admission to the Malaysian Bar Association is not as strict as compared to the American system, for example.
To qualify as a Malaysian barrister, or to qualify as a barrister, law graduates must undergo a nine-month court training (apprenticeship) period. If the Bar Council has “no objection” to his admission (which is given as a matter of course in most cases), the graduate will be admitted to the Malaysian Bar with only two letters of recommendation from good people.
In contrast, the American system is more stringent.
Each state in the United States has its own medical licensing requirements. Law graduates must pass the Multistate Bar Examination, which is a one-day multiple-choice exam and a one-day essay exam on the law of the state in which the graduate intends to practice.
In addition, graduates must also achieve that particular state’s required score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE), a standard legal ethics exam required in nearly every state. Some states require licensed attorneys to complete “continuing legal education” (CLE) requirements once they begin practicing.
I encourage the Bar Council to consider the following benefits:
- Review current bar entry requirements to ensure that only those with basic legal skills are eligible or eligible to begin bar training. Without these basic legal skills, lawyers will not be able to understand how to use AI in their legal practice.
- Require an equivalent of the U.S. CLE to ensure that lawyers are familiar with current legal developments so that they can better prepare them for the use of AI.
- Develop an AI literacy certification program for licensed attorneys.
conclusion
The question is no longer whether AI will shape legal practice, but how it will be responsibly integrated into practice. Members of the legal community, led by the Malaysian Bar Council, must take decisive action. In doing so, we not only protect our professional standards, but also the public’s trust in our legal system.
Dr Alima Gione is an adjunct professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.
