Quorum failure in disciplinary proceedings invalidates decisions made, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with procedural requirements under the Legal Profession Act.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 23 September 2013 in allowing the respondent's appeal against the decision of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") dated 5 February 2010, in which the respondent was to be suspended from practice as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya for a period of three years. The suspension order was to take effect 21 days from the date of the order and was to expire on 26 February 2013.

Brief Facts

[2] The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 the appellant is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya and practising under the name Messrs Chou & Co;

2.2 the complainant (who was the respondent in the High Court appeal and not a party to this appeal) lodged a complaint dated 12 September 2005 to the DB that the respondent had acted in a loan transfer which later turned into a fraudulent sale and purchase transaction. The complainant in her complaint letter dated 12 September 2005, stated that she was approached by a "runner" called Mike who told her that he could arrange for a fast loan and the respondent would be the lawyer who would prepare the documents for that purpose;

2.3 according to the complainant the runner influenced her to meet the respondent on 16 March 2004. The complainant and her sister were then persuaded to sign blank papers in escrow. The complainant was later given a cheque of RM17,000.00 from the loan of RM20,000.00, the sum of RM3000.00 being for interest and expenses. The complainant then stated that on 5 August 2004 the runner went to her house and delivered two undated letters purportedly signed by the complainant and addressed to the respondent's legal firm, Messrs Chou & Co, which was witnessed by Lim Hock Chai (Mike) the runner;

2.4 the complainant further stated that the documents stated that the complainant had received RM10,000.00 deposit and RM102,750.00 and that the Buyer, Chew Siew Lee had settled the purchase price in full. The complainant had described the purchaser as "accomplice";

2.5 in the letter of complaint, the complainant further stated that on 16 March 2004 the complainant and her sister were again taken by the runner to the respondent's office where she was again induced to sign escrow papers being a letter addressed to Messrs Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co, legal firm which had acted for the complainant when she purchased the property, to authorise Messrs Chou & Co to collect the title document from the Land Office;

2.6 the complainant in para 8 of her letter of complaint said that it took her three months to gather the sum of RM25,000.00 (RM17,000.00 principal and RM8,000.00 interest) to repay the loan and to collect the papers she had signed in escrow. The complainant stated that in the meantime the respondent wrote to Messrs Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co informing them that the property had been sold;

2.7 the complainant further stated that the runner dropped in her letter box, four bank in slips to show that the runner had purchased the property. When she attempted to return the sum of RM63,000.00 to the runner, the runner refused and said he had bought the property;

2.8 the complainant lodged a police report. The exhibits tendered by the complainant with the letter of complaint showed that there was indeed a sale and purchase agreement;

2.9 the respondent responded to the DB letter dated 6 October 2005. In his letter of explanation the respondent explained that he had acted for one Madam Chew Siew Lee, the purchaser. The complainant came to his office with a broker on 16 March 2004 for the sale and purchase of a unit of double storey terrace house held under Geran 48196