Structures and Practices of University-Based Legal Aid Clinics in Malaysia and the United States

Abstract

Clinical Legal Education (CLE) has become a defining element of contemporary legal training, transforming how law schools prepare students for professional practice. Traditional doctrinal teaching, while foundational, has long been criticized for its limited capacity to equip future lawyers with the skills, ethics, and social awareness necessary for effective lawyering. CLE bridges this gap by embedding students in real or simulated legal settings where they can apply substantive law, engage with clients, and confront ethical dilemmas firsthand. Legal aid clinics—often hosted within universities— represent the most prominent form of CLE, simultaneously serving pedagogical and social justice functions. They provide law students with structured, experiential learning while extending legal assistance to underserved communities, thereby advancing the global commitment to access to justice under Sustainable Development Goal 16.
This paper provides a comparative analysis of university-based legal aid clinics in Malaysia and the United States, examining how their structures, operations, and pedagogical goals reflect differing institutional and legal traditions. Employing a qualitative and comparative methodology, the study draws on scholarly literature, institutional reports, and academic commentaries to map the organization, curriculum integration, and student participation models in both jurisdictions. Findings indicate that while both systems recognize the pedagogical value of clinical education, their levels of institutionalization differ markedly. In the United States, CLE is a wellestablished and mandatory component of legal education, supported by accreditation standards and evaluated through learning outcomes. In contrast, Malaysian legal aid clinics remain largely cocurricular, relying on voluntary participation with limited academic credit and inconsistent integration into the law curriculum.
Despite these structural differences, both countries share a commitment to cultivating law students’ professional identity, ethical competence, and community engagement through practical exposure. The comparative analysis underscores that Malaysia’s CLE framework can be strengthened by embedding legal aid clinics into formal curricula, supported by clear policies, supervision protocols, and sustainable funding models. Drawing lessons from the U.S. experience, the paper concludes that integrating CLE as an assessed academic component will not only enhance the quality of legal education in Malaysia but also reinforce the role of universities as agents of social justice and civic responsibility.