The Malaysian Bar - ‘Lawyer breached code of ethics’

Home

News/Notices

News

Bar News/Berita Badan Peguam

‘Lawyer breached code of ethics’

Tuesday, 08 July 2008 06:43am

M. Arulampalam ©The Sun (Used by permission)
by Tim Leonard

PETALING JAYA: Lawyer M. Arulampalam – controversial private investigator (PI) P. Balasubramaniam’s second counsel – could face possible action by the Bar Council’s disciplinary board for breaching the lawyers’ code of ethics.

This follows allegations by Americk Singh Sidhu, the lawyer who first represented Balasubramaniam, that Arulampalam took over as counsel for the PI, without his (Sidhu’s) consent.

“It is a breach of ethics to represent a person without the prior consent or approval of his first lawyer,” he said when contacted.

“I have been strongly advised by members of the Bar Council to file a formal complaint against Arulampalam and will do it soon.

“I was not contacted (by the lawyer). I came to know that Balasubramaniam had engaged another lawyer to retract the first SD (statutory declaration) and had released a second SD only when the media contacted me on Friday morning.”

“The lawyer should have known better as he was handling a case that involved an SD, and the least he could have done was to inform me that he was taking over as counsel,” Sidhu said.

“This is unacceptable. I am not interested in fighting with anyone. I am more interested in knowing the truth,” he said, adding however that he would not take any legal action against Balasubramaniam.

“I know Bala well and have full faith in him. He would not resort to such actions unless he was intimidated or pressured, so that is why I am not resorting to any legal action against him.”

Sidhu, who denied he is a member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, said he became involved in Balasubramaniam’s case on a pro bono basis because he was interested in the truth.

Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, when contacted, said that when a complaint is filed, it will go to the disciplinary board for the next course of action.

“A lot depends on the retainer given to the lawyer by the client and it is open to the lawyer concerned to lodge a complaint if there has been a breach,” she said, adding that this would also apply in cases handled pro bono.

“If a complaint is filed with the disciplinary board, then the necessary action will certainly be taken,” she added.

Sreenevasan was quoted in the media on Saturday as saying that Balasubramaniam’s first SD will stand and cannot be withdrawn.

“A statutory declaration is a document that contains evidence given on oath. It is sworn before a commissioner of oaths. As in the case
of all evidence given under oath, it cannot be withdrawn,” she said.

Sreenevasan however she said a statutory declaration could be supplemented or corrected.

Set as favourite

Email This

Comments (3) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

A state of mass confusion !
written by Tan Peek Guat, Tuesday, July 08 2008 08:58 am

It is indeed a breach of ethics and unacceptable. However, the conduct of many personalities, even ‘top shots’ are also unacceptable today. Probably the standard has changed; and ‘proper conduct’ has also changed - to the extent that many Malaysians are confused! Therefore, in all respects of conduct and human behavior, we need much mediation today, more than anytime before; but, first and foremost, we really need to go back to our own Gods and repent, confess all sins, and live anew.

The first error of men is hypocrisy. The bible says that most among us are hypocrites. How do we change that? If that can be changed - that men will not dwell in hypocrisy, then many other faults will not occur.

Tan Peek Guat

Care to comment ?
written by Fatima Bt Tahir Ali, Tuesday, July 08 2008 12:58 pm

Americk says “I have been strongly advised by members of the Bar Council to file a formal complaint against Arulampalam and will do it soon."

Would the Bar Council care to comment/clarify before readers form the opinion that the Council has already decided the 1st SD has merits, 2nd SD was made under duress, the 2nd lawyer was unethical etc etc etc.

I think this is necessary because as you can see eventhough Ambiga rightly explained the legal position on the first SD the gist that the Sun extracted was "Sreenevasan was quoted in the media on Saturday as saying that Balasubramaniam’s first SD will stand and cannot be withdrawn" which sounds all wrong.

Fatima Bt Tahir Ali

Confused............
written by Tan Chun Ming, Tuesday, July 08 2008 07:04 pm

I am very confused, someone please explain to me the answers of these hypothetical questions which are currently bothering me:

"If G is the counsel for Z who made the 1st SD, G and not Z later read out the 1st SD to the public, Z however through L and his 2nd SD declared that the 1st SD was made under duress, what is the consequence of G? Especially when the 1st SD was not read by Z himself but through G? Is there an ethical issue involved which L can take against G as the 1st SD contained information that are sub judice?

Can G take actions against L for representing without consent of previous counsel in which the client, Z had said the 1st SD was under duress?

Both SD weren't affirmed by neither G not L, but by a third party commissioner of oath, can G and L take actions against each other based on their SD at hand?

Should G and L be prejudiced under the circumstances created by Z (voluntarily or involuntarily)?"

Anyone knows the answer?

This is a confusing era with confused person, I do not think there is anything wrong for someone to seek a second opinion or second counsel. But let us be fair, lawyers should not be prejudice or subject to actions when representing their clients.

At the end of the day, I don't think counsel should be blamed for his client's conducts/ choices/ instructions, more so when it involved political issues.

I think the Bar should shun away from ethical issues which involved politics. From my point of view, we have stepped too deep into the mud and should reconsider our position to uphold law and justice but not be a part of any political tussle. Let us stay independant and independant hereon.

I do not know Mr. Americk Singh Sidhu or Mr. M. Arulampalam personally, but I think the Bar should not let any member of the Bar to be the victim of politics.

As our DPM had said, "Politik Malaysia Makin Kotor"

Tan Chun Ming