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

On 21 April 2006, the Plaintiff, Abdul Razak Bin Hashim, an Advocate & Solicitor, filed a suit against the Malaysian Bar Council seeking the following reliefs:

(1)    A declaration that the Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules 2004 made under Section 57(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) is null and void;

(2)    A declaration that item 3 of Bar Council Circular No. 62/2004 titled “Bar Council Guidelines on Waiver of Fees in Conveyancing Matters” is contrary to Rule 52(c) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and is not binding on Members of the Malaysian Bar; and

(3)    A declaration that Members of the Malaysian Bar are allowed to waive fees in non-contentious matters at their sole discretion subject to Rule 52(c) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 or any other rule made under section 77 of the LPA.

On 26 April 2010, the Kuala Lumpur High Court allowed the first prayer but dismissed prayers 2 and 3 with no order as to costs.

The learned High Court Judge ruled that the Bar Council’s powers under section 57(a) of the LPA did not include the power to make enforcement rules.  The learned Judge, however, in dismissing prayers 2 and 3 above had upheld the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005.  Members of the Bar are reminded that any breach of the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005 amounts to a misconduct for which disciplinary action may follow.

The Bar Council is studying the matter and will decide shortly if it intends to appeal against the High Court decision.

M/s Cheong Wai Meng & Van Buerle acted for the Plaintiff while M/s Sreenevasan Young acted for the Bar Council.