Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5482
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
CHOW LI KIAN – Appellant
Versus
HSL PLASTICS SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: BA-17D-2-03/2023]
A partner in a law firm cannot represent themselves in matters where they are implicated due to inherent conflicts of interest and potential bias.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 103D - Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 - Rules 3, 4, 5, 27(a), and 28(a) - Disqualification of legal firm - Application to disqualify the firm representing the Appellant due to conflict of interest and potential witness issues - The Court found that the Appellant's firm could not represent her due to the inherent conflict arising from her partnership in the firm and the nature of the complaints against her. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 17, 39)
(B) Conflict of Interest - The Court emphasized that a partner cannot represent themselves through their own firm in matters where they are implicated, as it undermines professional independence and the administration of justice. (Paras 12, 36)
(C) Witness Issues - The Court ruled that the potential for lawyers in the firm to be witnesses does not arise in the context of the appeal, as it is based solely on the appeal records. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent sought to disqualify the Appellant's firm from representing her in an appeal against disciplinary fines imposed by the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board. The Respondent argued that the Appellant's dual role as a partner and the subject of complaints created a conflict of interest.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Appellant's firm could not represent her due to the conflict of interest and potential bias, thus allowing the disqualification application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellant's firm could represent her given the conflict of interest and the implications of her being a partner in the firm.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a partner cannot represent themselves through their own firm in matters where they are implicated, as it compromises professional independence and the integrity of the legal process.
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application by the Respondent under O 32 r 1 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 in encl 20 for the following orders:
(i) that Messrs. Josephine, L K Chow & Co, the firm acting for the Appellant in the present Appeal ("JLKC") be disqualified and/or prevented from representing the Appellant in these proceedings;
(ii) that the partners and also any lawyers from JLKC be prevented from handling these proceedings on behalf of the Appellant and/or from advising the Appellant legally and from doing any legal works in the capacity of the solicitors of the Appellant until the disposal of these proceedings; and
(iii) other reliefs such as interim stay of the instant Appeal pending disposal of the above interlocutory application and costs to be borne by the Appellant.
[2] This interlocutory application stemmed out of an Appeal filed by the Appellant by way of originating summons, against the Orders of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") as follows:
(iv) Order under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 dated 11 February 2023 in respect of Complaint No.: DC/19/0002 ("Complaint No 0002") that the Appellant be imposed a fine of RM3,000.00; and
(v) Order under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 dated 11 February 2023 in respect of Complaint No.: DC/19/0037 ("Complaint No. 0037") that the Appellant be imposed a fine of RM5,000.00.
(collectively "DB Orders")
Factual Background
[3] In 2017, the Respondent with Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn Bhd ("HSLSB") and TNL Plastic Manufacturer Sdn Bhd ("TNLSB") initiated legal proceedings against two defendants, namely Lim Kai Meng ("LKM") and KM Plastics Technology Sdn Bhd ("KMPTSB") in the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("KL Suit"); wherein the Respondent together with HSLSB and TNLSB be referred to as "KL Suit Plaintiffs" collectively, whereas LKM and KMPTSB will be referred to as "KL Suit Defendants" collectively).
[4] The Appellant had represented the KL Suit Plaintiffs in the KL Suit. On 5 September 2018, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found in favour of the KL Suit Plaintiffs. The KL Suit Defendants appealed against the findings of the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("KL Suit Appeal"). The Court of Appeal on 11 November 2019 dismissed the KL Suit Appeal.
[5] During the interim, on 17 December 2018, the Respondent issued a letter to JLKC where the Respondent claimed that JLKC did not have any authority to act for the Respondent in the KL Suit Appeal, and JLKC was demanded to cease acting for the Respondent in the KL Suit Appeal.
[6] On 21 December 2018, the Respondent issued a second letter to demand JLKC to immediately stop acting for the Respondent in all of the Respondent's legal proceedings.
[7] Subsequently, the Respondent lodged Complaint No 0002 against the Appellant and one Ms Jolene (who was practicing as legal associate in JLKC at the material time) with the DB.
[8] In January 2019, the Respondent's former director, one Tan Ken Meng ("Former Director") filed an oppression petition ("Oppression Petition") against the Respondent and its directors, LKM (one of the defendants in the KL Suit) and one Lim Shen Lee ("LSL"). This time, JLKC represented the Former Director. The Oppression Petition of the Former Director was however unfruitful.
[9] Nonetheless, the incident of JLKC representing the Former Director in the Oppression Petition formed the basis of Complaint No. 0037 by the Respondent against the Appellant and the said Ms. Jolene.
[10] Both Complaint No 0002 and Complaint No 0037 were heard simultaneously by the same panel of Disciplinary Committee. On 11 February 2023, the DB affirmed the Disciplinary Committee's findings of liability and its recommendation on punishment for both the complaints against the Appellant.
Enclosure 20 Application
[11] In this application to disqualify JLKC as a whole in representing the Appellant in this instant Appeal, the Respondent raised the following grounds:
(i) that the Appellant is one of the partners in JLKC (JLKC is the f
