Legal Profession
6 cases · June 2017 to January 2026
Case Volume by Year
2 17
1 19
2 25
1 26
2017–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Disciplinary Committee — Inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee — Appointment of Disciplinary Committee was delayed — Appellant filed originating summons seeking a declaration that the Disciplinary Board's appointment of the Disciplinary Committee members was out of time in accordance with section 103A of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) — time stipulated in the LPA is mandatory — non-compliance renders the proceedings invalid — Whether High Court judge’s refusal to grant declaratory reliefs on basis of originating summons being premature was correct in law. 1 Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the absence of the Appellant’s personal culpability in the allegation of misconduct — Whether HCJ misdirected herself in applying section 12 of the Partnership Act 1961 instead 1 Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Appellant not allowed to call witness at DC proceedings — Whether there was failure by HCJ in addressing issue of breach of natural justice during the hearing before the DC 1 Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof at DC proceedings. 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Solicitor’s undertaking — Conditional undertaking issued by Legal Assistant — Firm discharged before receipt of funds — Cheque returned undeposited — Whether undertaking matured into binding obligation — Whether Legal Assistant personally liable for firm issued undertaking — Whether termination of retainer extinguished authority — Whether disciplinary proceedings flawed — Absence of complainant at inquiry — Denial of cross-examination rights — Standard of proof not stated — Increase of fine by Disciplinary Board without reasons — Whether serious procedural irregularities vitiated proceedings — Whether prejudice caused to solicitor — Whether decision of Disciplinary Board and Disciplinary Committee liable to be set aside — Legal Profession Act 1976 ss 94(2)(c), 94(3)(d), 100, 103, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E, 138 — Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 rr 14, 16, 27 1 Disciplinary Board — Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct — Complaint dismissed by Disciplinary Board — Appeal to High Court dismissed — Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed — Whether letter of complaint amounted to complain as envisaged by Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether respondent drafted or involved in drafting of statutory declaration — Legal Profession Act 1976 s 99 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board (DB) /Committee (DC) — Appeal — Legal firm represented orang asli beneficiaries in claim regarding compensation for acquisition of ancestral land — Judgment obtained against Johor State Government — Compensation monies paid out to legal firm but not given to orang asli beneficiaries — Complaint by respondent, an advocate and solicitor on behalf of Saling — Whether DB/DC had jurisdiction to register/set up and inquire into this complaint — Whether proceedings before DB/DC were properly conducted — Principle of proportionality and the principles of sentencing in meeting out sentences —Whether name of 1st appellant as advocate and solicitor ought to be struck off Rolls of Advocates and Solicitors — Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166],section 94(3), section 103 (1A), section 103B (1), Section 103B (2), section 103C 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of disciplinary board — Whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring charge to be specifically framed or preferred against advocate and solicitor in disciplinary proceedings — Whether there was any prejudice or denial of natural justice to advocate or solicitor — Whether DB and DC required to frame specific charge against advocate and solicitor — Whether findings of DC and DB in disciplinary proceedings fell within scope of complaint — Whether DB had power to enhance punishment recommended by DC without giving reasons — Whether period of suspension imposed unreasonable and inappropriate 1
Disciplinary Committee — Inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee — Appointment of Disciplinary Committee was delayed — Appellant filed originating summons seeking a declaration that the Disciplinary Board's appointment of the Disciplinary Committee members was out of time in accordance with section 103A of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) — time stipulated in the LPA is mandatory — non-compliance renders the proceedings invalid — Whether High Court judge’s refusal to grant declaratory reliefs on basis of originating summons being premature was correct in law. 1 case
Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the absence of the Appellant’s personal culpability in the allegation of misconduct — Whether HCJ misdirected herself in applying section 12 of the Partnership Act 1961 instead 1 case
Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Appellant not allowed to call witness at DC proceedings — Whether there was failure by HCJ in addressing issue of breach of natural justice during the hearing before the DC 1 case
Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof at DC proceedings. 1 case
Disciplinary Board — Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct — Complaint dismissed by Disciplinary Board — Appeal to High Court dismissed — Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed — Whether letter of complaint amounted to complain as envisaged by Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether respondent drafted or involved in drafting of statutory declaration — Legal Profession Act 1976 s 99 1 case
Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board (DB) /Committee (DC) — Appeal — Legal firm represented orang asli beneficiaries in claim regarding compensation for acquisition of ancestral land — Judgment obtained against Johor State Government — Compensation monies paid out to legal firm but not given to orang asli beneficiaries — Complaint by respondent, an advocate and solicitor on behalf of Saling — Whether DB/DC had jurisdiction to register/set up and inquire into this complaint — Whether proceedings before DB/DC were properly conducted — Principle of proportionality and the principles of sentencing in meeting out sentences —Whether name of 1st appellant as advocate and solicitor ought to be struck off Rolls of Advocates and Solicitors — Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166],section 94(3), section 103 (1A), section 103B (1), Section 103B (2), section 103C 1 case
Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of disciplinary board — Whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring charge to be specifically framed or preferred against advocate and solicitor in disciplinary proceedings — Whether there was any prejudice or denial of natural justice to advocate or solicitor — Whether DB and DC required to frame specific charge against advocate and solicitor — Whether findings of DC and DB in disciplinary proceedings fell within scope of complaint — Whether DB had power to enhance punishment recommended by DC without giving reasons — Whether period of suspension imposed unreasonable and inappropriate 1 case
Key Statutes
Legal Profession Act 1976 (Cap 166)
cited in 2 cases Partnership Act 1961
cited in 1 case Partnership Act
cited in 1 case Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
w-02a-60-01-2023
HOW CHEE HONG v 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP BENG FATT 4. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA
7 January 2026
MYCOA
b-02a-1132-07-2024
LIM KIEN HUAT v 1. ) HO SHEN LEE (M) SDN BHD (Dalam Liquidasi) 2. ) TAN KEN MENG 3. ) KHOO CHUN FUN 4. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA
22 September 2025
MYCOA
aa-17d-1-07-2024
SAKTHIVEL NAGALINGAM OF MESSRS AMRAN JOSEPH CHAN & CO. v KUMARAPPAN @ THANNIRMALAI A/L K. M. PALANIAPPAN PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA
2 July 2025
MYHC
02f-12-03-2018w
MAJLIS PEGUAM CECIL WILBERT MOHANARAJ ABRAHAM
28 March 2019
MYFC
02f-65-10-2015w
1. DINESH KANAVAJI A/L KANAWAGI 2. KANAWAGI A/L SEPERUMANIAM v RAGUMAREN A/L N. GOPAL PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM
27 November 2017
MYFC
02f-55-08-2015b
Majlis Peguam Malaysia v 1. Rajehgopal a/l Velu 2. Ganashaligham a/l Rajah
28 June 2017
MYFC