The Disciplinary Board exceeded its authority by remitting findings to the Disciplinary Committee instead of making a direct determination, violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Appellant's Case

[1] The appellant is an advocate and solicitor practising in the name and style of Messrs Frank Ch'ng ("the Firm").

[2] On 23 August 2016, the respondent approached the Firm on some matters involving her former companies, Hock Sang Realty Sdn Bhd and Hock Sang Travel Centre (M) Sdn Bhd ("the respondent's companies").

[3] The respondent attended a few meetings at the Firm and forwarded some court cause papers and documents in respect of legal matters between the respondent's companies and Cl MB Bank Berhad ("CIMB Bank"). During a meeting on 9 September 2016, the appellant informed the respondent that he required payment of RM50,000 as an initial retainer. According to the appellant, the retainer was in the event that the respondent desired to engage the appellant for litigation matters on behalf of the respondent and the respondent's companies.

[4] The respondent paid the sum of RM50,100 on 22 September 2016.

[5] The appellant's version is that he had acted on the respondent's instruction by attending several meetings in Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur. The appellant also furnished legal opinion to the respondent and the respondent's companies. The last conversation between the appellant and the respondent was on 18 November 2016.

[6] Although the appellant attempted to resolve the impasse, there was no response from the respondent.

The Complaint

[7] On 12 February 2017, the respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant to the Disciplinary Board ("DB"). The essence of the complaint is linked to the police reports made by the respondent against the appellant.

[8] In essence, the respondent asserted that despite numerous requests for the appellant to update her on the progress in the litigation matters against the Cl MB Bank, the appellant had failed to do so. The respondent even went to the appellant's office, but according to her, there was no one there except for a female clerk.

[9] In response to the complaint letter, the appellant submitted his written explanation to the DB. In short, in his letter dated 16 June 2017, the appellant explained to the DB that:

(a) He attended several meetings with the representative from CIMB Bank to resolve the legal issues, including an auction matter between the parties.

(b) The appellant also attended meetings with the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia ("SSM") and the Insolvency Department ("JIM") with one Andy Goh Yao Fong, the respondent's son.

(c) According to the appellant, since the respondent and Andy Goh had been declared bankrupt and Hock Sang Travel had been wound up, they were advised to seek consent from JIM if they wished to proceed with any legal action against CIMB Bank.

(d) The respondent had also requested the appellant to attend two separate meetings in November 2016 at the CIMB Bank's office in Jalan Raja Laut, but he could not attend the same due to short notice.

(e) The respondent then informed the appellant that she would handle the matter herself.

(f) Since then, the respondent did not contact the appellant, including asking for the return of documents until she lodged the complaint to the DB.

[10] On 11 January 2018, the DB appointed a Disciplinary Committee ("DC") under s 103A of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA"). After having heard the matter, the DC did not make a definitive ruling on the liability of the appellant ("the 1st Finding"). It says:

There is no 'clear cut' of the meaning of retainer. Subject to DB['s] ruling.

[11] The matter was then referred to the DB. On 19 April 2019, the DB directed the DC to make a finding on the appellant's liability.