The withdrawal of a complaint against a solicitor after a disciplinary order nullifies the findings of liability and the imposed punishment, emphasizing the necessity of respecting such withdrawals.

[1] The Apellant is at the material time practising as an advocate and solicitior in thr name and style of Messrs Zaira & Co

[2] The respondent company ("the complainant") entered into a sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") on 25 March 2013 with one MKA Annamalai Chettiar s/o Karuppan ("Annamalai") to purchase a piece of land known as Lot 5020, Mukim Kapar, Klang, Selangor ("the said Land"). Annamalai ("the vendor") executed the SPA in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of one Marimuthu a/I Govindasamy, the registered owner of the said Land.

[3] The agreed purchase price as reflected in the SPA is RM4,704,480.00.

[4] The complainant, through its solicitor's letter dated 18 February 2013, forwarded a sum of RM470,000 as a deposit ("the deposit") to the applicant.

[5] The SPA was conditional upon the vendor within six months from the date of the SPA obtaining an order to transfer the said Land to the complainant. It is also subject to the removal of a private caveat lodged on the said Land ("the said Orders").

[6] The date on which the complainant's solicitors were to receive the certified true copies of the said Orders would be treated as the unconditional date under cl 1 of the SPA ("the Unconditional Date").

[7] Unbeknown to the complainant or its solicitors, the appellant, however, released part of the deposit to various beneficiaries nominated by Annamalai. A final payment was made to one Lourdesamy Santiago for RM261,360 on 18 July 2013.

[8] Despite the payments to various beneficiaries, the appellant, in a letter dated 7 January 2014, wrote to the complainant's solicitors to confirm that the firm still held the deposit sum as the stakeholder. The letter inter alia states as follows:

We refer to the above matter and your letter dated 18 December 2013.

We hereby confirmed (sic) that the deposit sum amounting [to] RM470,000 is held by us as [the] stakeholder.

[9] The complainant terminated the SPA by its letter dated 2 October 2017, alleging the failure on the part of Annamalai to fulfil the conditions precedent within the stipulated time. It also demanded the refund of the deposit together with interest.

[10] On the complaint lodged by the complainant, the Disciplinary Committee ("DC") found that the appellant was guilty of dishonest and/or fraudulent conduct in the discharge of her duties when acting as solicitor for the vendor in respect of the said Land. According to the DC, the applicant's dishonesty resulted in the complainant being deprived of the return of the deposit in a timely manner.

[11] The findings on liability of the DC state are as follows:

It is the unanimous finding of this DC that the Respondent is guilty of dishonest and/or fraudulent conduct in the discharge of her duties when acting as the Solicitor for the Vendor. The dishonesty being in the manner in which she dealt with the conveyancing file under her care in the attempted purchase of [the] said Land particulars GM 16679, Lot 5020, Mukim Kapar, District of Klang, State of Selangor involving the Complainant and the Vendor. The Respondent's dishonesty resulted in the Complainant being deprived of the return of the deposit of RM4,700,00.00 together with interest, in a timely manner and additionally, in the Complainant having to expend considerable time and monies to overcome the deception perpetrated by the Respondent as regards to the status of their deposit.

In short, the DC rejected the appellant's second written explanation that the