Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Sun (Letters Section) (Used by permission)
by Tan Sri Khalid Ahmad Sulaiman
chairman, Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board, Kuala Lumpur

REFERENCE is made to the letter from Vijay Shanmugam (May 29) headlined “Delay in hearing complaint”.

Firstly, the judgment in the Ipoh High Court alluded to by the writer was not made against the chairman of the Malaysian Bar’s Disciplinary Board and its committee as claimed, as neither was a party to the suit.

It follows that his statements that “the board needs much scrutiny by the public ...” and “Hopefully, the eye-opening judgment ... leads the board to be impartial in hearing public complaints ... ” are totally unjustified.

The writer further complains of a delay in attending to complaints on the part of the board and makes specific reference to a “complaint in Taiping” (sic). The writer should give me particulars of the complaint for me to investigate if indeed there has been a delay in processing it as alleged. So far this year, the complaints secretariat has received only two complaints from Taiping and both have been attended to by the board and the lawyers concerned have been asked to respond to the complaint within the prescribed time.

When a complaint is received, the board studies it to ascertain if there is merit. If there is none, the complaint will be dismissed. Where the complaint has merit, it is referred to the lawyer complained against for a written explanation within 14 days. This time to respond may be extended for good reason.

If the explanation is not satisfactory, the board will refer the complaint to a Disciplinary Committee, comprising a panel of two lawyers and a lay person, to hear and receive evidence to determine if the lawyer complained against is guilty of the misconduct alleged. The committee will also recommend the punishment to be meted out.

The findings and recommendation of the committee are reviewed by the board which may or may not agree with these. If the board disagrees with the committee’s decision, the board will summon the lawyer complained against to show cause why the committee’s findings and recommendation should not be varied.

There are cases where, after disciplinary proceedings have started, the complainant withdraws the complaint. However, in cases where dishonesty or fraudulent acts by the lawyer complained against is alleged, the Bar Council, in the interest of the public may step in to continue with the complaint.

All these procedural steps in the advocates and solicitors disciplinary proceedings, for which certain time lines are prescribed in the relevant act and rules, will seem to delay the disciplinary proceedings.

Indeed in the early days before the recent amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976, there were unacceptable delays in the processing of complaints to the final decisions. However, with the amendments, and greater contributions of time and effort by staff and members of the board with procedures having been streamlined, the disposal of complaints within a period of six to 18 months in straight forward cases have become the norm.

We trust the members of the public and legal fraternity will appreciate the delicate and difficult task of the Disciplinary Board and extend to us their cooperation and understanding.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed