A valid complaint under the Legal Profession Act must assert clear misconduct; the appeal was dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.

[1] This was an appeal by the appellant/Bar Council against the decision of the High Court in dismissing the appellants appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Board ("DB"). The DB had dismissed the appellants complaint against the respondent, an advocate and solicitor.

[2] We had unanimously dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

Background Facts

[3] The late Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ("Bala") was a prosecution witness in the murder trial of Altantuya Shaaribuu ("Altantuya"). On 1 July 2008, Bala signed a statutory declaration ("SD1") where he had, inter alia, implicated Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak ("Datuk Seri Najib") in a relationship with Altantuya. At all material times, Americk Singh Sidhu ("Americk") was Balas solicitor and Americk had drafted SD1 on Balas instructions. SD1 was made known to the public via a press conference held on 3 July 2008.

[4] On 4 July 2008, Bala signed another statutory declaration (SD2) where he retracted the entire contents of SD1 and where he alleged that he was compelled to sign SD1 under duress. SD2 was made known to the public through a press conference on 4 July 2008.

[5] In a three-part video interview which was made public on or around 12 November 2009, Bala alleged that he signed SD2 under duress.

[6] On or around 12 December 2012, in a video interview with TV Pas, Deepak Jaikishan ("Deepak") identified the solicitors involved in the preparation of SD2. TV Pas had deleted/muted the sound track from that portion of the video interview wherein Deepak had apparently disclosed the name(s) of the solicitor(s).

[7] Following Deepaks video interview, there was speculation and allegation in various media of the respondents involvement with regard to the preparation of SD2.

[8] On 14 December 2012, at Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur, in the presence of the respondents wife; Tommy Thomas and his wife; Lim Chee Wee; Darryl Goon and his wife and Dato Johari Razak and his wife, the respondent had allegedly confirmed that he had drafted SD2 or had been involved with its drafting.

[9] On 21 January 2013, the appellant wrote to the respondent and Sunil Abraham ("Sunil") to enquire whether they had any knowledge of the allegations made with regard to the preparation of SD2. The relevant part of the letter reads:

"As both of you may be aware, ... there had been speculation and allegations in various media, of your involvement with regard to the preparation of the SD2.

In view of the allegations of potential misconduct, we are duty bound to enquire into whether any aspects of the matter have any implications on any issue of professional misconduct.

As such, we would be obliged if you could furnish us with any information with regard to the preparation of SD2 and whether you have any knowledge of the same."

[10] Vide a letter dated 23 January 2013, the solicitors acting for the respondent and Sunil informed the appellant that their clients were unable to assist the appellants enquiries by reason of solicitor-client privilege. Thereafter, between February and April 2013, further correspondence ensued between the appellant and the respondents solicitors pertaining to the issue of solicitor- client privilege.

[11] On or around 22 February 2013, it was reported that Deepak had commenced legal action against Datuk Seri Najib and that the respondent was identified in the statement of claim as one of the solicitors involved in the drafting and preparation of SD2. On 11 March 2013, the appellant wrote to Sivarasa a/l Ramiah, Deepaks solicitor, requesting for a