Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal in encl (1) filed by the appellant against the Disciplinary Board's ("DB's") decision to suspend the appellant from practice pursuant to s 94(4)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("the Act") pending a full inquiry into the complaint. The DB's order dated 22 April 2006 is found at p 86 of the appeal record. The application under s 94(4)(c) of the Act was made by the Bar Council by way of a letter dated 24 February 2006 as seen at pp 1 to 3 of the appeal record. That s 94(4)(c) of the Act reads as follows:

94 Power of Disciplinary Board to strike off the Roll, suspend for misconduct, etc

(4) Where an advocate and solicitor:

(c) is the subject of a complaint concerning any dishonest act committed by him in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor;

and the Bar Council considers that it would be in the public interest or in the interest of his clients or of the profession that such advocate and solicitor be suspended from practice, the Bar Council may apply to the Disciplinary Board for an order suspending such advocate and solicitor from practice until further notice.

The Bar Council's application is based on a complaint lodged by one Madam Zubaidah binti Mohd Nasir ("Zubaidah") by way of a letter dated 18 March 2005 as seen at p 4 to p 24 of the appeal record with the annexures annexed thereto.

The Factual Background And The Decision

[2] The facts are fairly simple and straightforward. It may be stated in this way. On 18 March 2005, Zubaidah lodged a complaint with the Bar Council. The gist of Zubaidah's complaint may chronologically be set out as follows:

(a) On 19 July 2004, Zubaidah entered into a sale and purchase agreement to sell her property for the sum of RM162,000 (see p 6 to p 11 of the appeal record).

(b) On 18 February 2005, the appellant confirmed receipt of the full purchase price of RM162,000 from the purchasers' financiers' solicitors (see p 12 of the appeal record).

(c) On 23 February 2005, the appellant issued a cheque for the sum of RM145,800 being the balance 90% of the purchase price to Zubaidah but, unfortunately, that cheque was dishonoured (see pp 13 to 16 of the appeal record).

(d) Being dissatisfied, Zubaidah then demanded the payment that was due from the appellant (see pp 18 to 19 of the appeal record).

(e) On the appellant's request, Zubaidah agreed to extend the period of payment to 18 March 2005 (see pp 20 to 21 of the appeal record).

(f) However, by 18 March 2005, the appellant failed to honour her undertaking to make the payment and this prompted Zubaidah to lodge a police report against the appellant (see pp 22 to 23 of the appeal record).

(g) Zubaidah, as alluded to earlier, also lodged a complaint against the appellant to the Bar Council by letter dated 18 March 2005 (see pp 4 to 5 of the appeal record).

(h) Thereafter, the appellant attempted to pay Zubaidah a total of RM150,000 in the following manner:

(i) RM50,000 by way of an AmBank cheque number 501400 (see p 25 of the appeal record); and

(ii) RM100,000 by way of a Maybank cheque number 925322 (see p 84 of the appeal record).

(i) On 25 March 2005, Zubaidah withdrew her complaint with the Bar Council as reflected at p 27 of the appeal record and that letter was worded in this way:

I refer to my letter of complaint to you dated 18 March 2005. I wish to withdraw the said letter dated 18 March 2005 and do not wish the Bar Council to investigate the said matter I regret for all the inconvenience caused. Thank you.

(j) However, on 6 July 2005, Zubaidah re-lodged the complaint against the appellant to the Bar Council on the following grounds (see p 63 of the appeal record):

(i) that the AmBank cheque for RM50,000 was dishonoured (see p 85 of the appeal record); and

(ii) that the Maybank cheque for RM100,000 was not from the appellant's clients' account, but, in fact, it was from one Dato' Lee Kam Sun (see p 84 of the appeal record).

[3] The appellant has accepted full responsibility in respect of Zubaidah