Early this year, on Jan 13, 2026, I co-moderated a webinar on AI that featured a prominent legal educator (Prof Jason Chuah, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya at that time), a global AI compliance director (Tharishni Arumugam, of London-based global insurance company AON), a senior corporate executive (Riyadh Dahlan, of Mastercard Malaysia) and a partner of a boutique law firm (Natalie Ooi of KL-based Ooi & Ooi).

The modest objective of the one-hour webinar was to get a sense of how AI was deployed in these major areas. We had a rewarding time, accomplishing what we sought to do and more.

As a former practising lawyer, I was most interested in what our law partner speaker had to say. 

Ooi’s presentation was comprehensive.  She explained the reasons why AI matters in private practice, drew attention to its key applications, the risks and responsibilities involved in its use as well as the Malaysian regulatory and compliance status. 

One takeaway was that while AI could be useful in law practice, it could not replace personal judgment.

How true.

The Malaysian Chief Justice Datuk Seri Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, reiterated the importance of human judgment when making judicial decisions. (A media interview, Dec 5, 2026)

The Malaysian Bar Council must consider doing more to address the risks associated with the use of AI for the sake of members of the public who are often unable to distinguish between legal practice and other professional services.

Legal services are not tangible products but involve the application of professional judgment to unique factual situations.  This critical distinguishing element is often overlooked in our eagerness to embrace AI.

For example, when a client seeks advice on a potential breach of contract, the lawyer’s initial and primary role is to assess whether a legally binding agreement exists and a lawsuit is viable. This assessment, professional assessment, requires a careful scrutiny and evaluation of facts, context, and legal principles. 

While AI tools such as ChatGPT may assist in research, reliance on them without rigorous verification poses serious risks.  An uncritical use of AI-generated outputs could result in flawed legal arguments, a waste of judicial resources, and potentially the possibility of professional sanctions.  Such incidents are no longer hypothetical — they are already occurring in practice.

As the use of AI is unstoppable, the responsibility to mitigate the risks fall on many parties.  Top on the list are the law schools and the Malaysian Bar Council.

As the body that regulates the practice and conduct of lawyers in Malaysia, the Bar Council is endowed with powers and responsibilities.

On the issue of the AI deployment risks, the Bar Council has issued two circulars for guidance.  In the first circular issued in November 2023, which was supplemented by one issued in July 2025, the Bar Council reminded members of their professional obligations and legal risks arising from the use of AI.

Beyond these circulars, it is unclear what the Bar Council plans to do.

The need for the Bar Council to act speedily cannot be overstated given the large number of law graduates Malaysia produces today.  In addition, there are foreign graduates who also seek admissions to the Malaysian bar.  Yet, as a general comment the quality of the national and foreign legal educations is uneven.  Unlike some countries where there is a national standard to weed out unqualified law graduates from entering the legal profession, Malaysia does not have any such tapis (screening or filter).

In Malaysia, admission to the Malaysian Bar is less rigorous if compared to the American system, for example. 

To be admitted to the Malaysian bar, that is to become a licensed lawyer, the law graduate must go through a period of chambering (apprenticeship) for nine months.  If the Bar Council has “no objection” to his admission (given as a matter of course in most cases), the graduate would be admitted to the Malaysian bar with only two good-character references. 

The American system by contrast is more rigorous. 

Each state in the United States has its own admission to practice requirements. A law graduate must pass the Multistate Bar Exam, a day-long multiple-choice test as well as a day-long essay examination of the laws of the state the graduate seeks to practise.

Further, the graduate must also attain that particular state’s required score of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), the standard legal ethics examination required by almost all states. Once in active practice, some states mandate admitted lawyers to meet “Continuing Legal Education” (CLE) requirements.

I recommend the Bar Council explore the merits of the following:

The question is no longer whether AI will shape legal practice, but how responsibly it will be integrated into practice. Members of the legal profession, led by the Malaysian Bar Council, must act decisively.  Doing so will not only safeguard our professional standards but also protect public confidence in the legal system.

Dr Alima Joned is adjunct professor at Universiti Malaya’s law faculty.