Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) (delivering the judgment of the Court):

This is an appeal from a determination of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Committee of Pahang on 10 August 1979 that the appellant, an advocate and solicitor of the High Court, had been guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor pursuant to the provisions of s. 93(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976. Upon that finding the committee ordered his suspension as an advocate and solicitor for a period of three months and condemned him in costs in the sum of $1,000 (see s. 101 of the Act). We dismissed the appeal.

It all started in this way. In Kuantan Civil Suit No. 256 of 1976 the plaintiffs sued Mr. Au Ah Wah, an advocate and solicitor in the firm of Messrs Au Ah Wah & Co. for the sum of $16,271.56 based on two dishonoured cheques drawn by him. He is the father of the appellant who is a legal assistant practising in the said firm. Mr. V. Balendran of Messrs Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones acted for the plaintiffs. He obtained summary judgment on 4 February 1977. On 16 February he rejected the defendant's proposal to pay the judgment sum in three monthly instalments. Instead he demanded payment within 48 hours and threatened execution proceedings and in fact he filed execution proceedings on 4 March 1977. On 16 March the bailiff called on the premises of Messrs Au Ah Wah & Co. to effect the execution. The appellant as solicitor on behalf of the defendant telephoned Mr. Balendran and requested him to lift the execution on the undertaking that the full sum of the judgment debt would be paid on or before 21 March. On the said undertaking Mr. Balendran agreed to lift the execution.

The defendant's solicitors, however, on 25 March filed an application for a stay of execution and for payment of the judgment sum in three instalments. Hearing was fixed on 25 March. Somehow the date of hearing was brought forward to 19 March. On 18 March Mr. Balendran filed an affidavit in opposition to the application and alleging the undertaking by the appellant. No affidavit in reply was filed by the appellant. The Senior Assistant Registrar allowed the application. The plaintiffs' solicitors successfully appealed to the Judge on 6 April. The learned Judge was critical of the appellant's conduct. He had this to say:

The appellant Counsel had made a very serious and grave allegation of dishonesty against Mr. Au Kong Weng which was serious enough in my view to require a sworn reply to it but he had not done so. I could not but come to the conclusion that such an undertaking was in fact made. Besides the facts were not inconsistent with one having existed. The respondent had already had the execution writ in his hands and execution was in process and could have been completed in good time. Why should the appellant suddenly in the midst of completion stay his hands when he was not obliged to, merely because the respondent was going to apply for a stay unless he was so stupid. The appellant had all to gain and nothing to lose by proceeding with execution. The circumstances clearly shows that he had done so only because he had been given a categorical undertaking or assurance by the respondent that the money was immediately forthcoming. He found himself deceived instead.

I would have no hesitation in allowing this appeal with costs.

I would not end this matter without saying that the circumstances of this case clearly merit the Bar Committee taking the necessary steps to investigate into the possibility of a professional mis-conduct by Counsel concerned.

The Senior Assistant Registrar shall duly serve a copy of this judgment on the Secretary of the Bar.

The judgment sum was paid by the defendant's solicitors on 7 April.

The Bar Committee took up the matter. Due enquiry was made. It was decided that the matter be formally investigated by the Disciplinary Committee consisting of members of the appellant's own profession under s. 93(2)(b) of the Legal Professi