The judgment clarifies that statements reflecting a journalist's opinion do not constitute professional misconduct under the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001.

Introduction

[1] This is the Bar Council's appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 23 July 2015, wherein the Court of Appeal reversed the order of the High Court Judge. The Court of Appeal found that the respondent, an advocate and solicitor did not breach the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001. In doing so, the Court of Appeal ordered that the fine of RM5,000.00 imposed against the respondent by the Bar Council's Disciplinary Board to be refunded.

[2] We heard the appeal on 9 March 2016 and dismissed the same with costs of RM50,000.00. We now give our reasons.

Facts

[3] Briefly, the facts of this case are these. On 23 September 2010, the Bar Council wrote to the Disciplinary Board complaining that the respondent appears to have breached the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 (2001 Rules). The complaint was based on an interview given by the respondent that appeared in two articles in the Star Newspaper. The first article entitled "Counsel Rests His Case" appeared in the Sunday Star on 27 September 2009 (the first article) and the second article entitled "Within the Letter of the Law" appeared in the Star Online on 5 October 2009 (second article).

[4] The Bar Council's complaint against the respondent was that both articles contained statements which according to the Bar Council, amounted to misconduct under s 94(3)(k) and 94(3)(o) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 , rr 2, 5(1)(b)(vi), 15(2) and 24 of the 2001 Rules, Ruling 14.01(2) of the Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council, 2007 and r 48 of the Legal Profession (Practice And Etiquette) Rules 1978.

[5] The Bar Council was of the view that the first article contained statements which was tantamount to a breach of the 2001 Rules. Briefly, the complaints were as follows:

(a) the article referred to the respondent as a "high profile lawyer" and a "top lawyer"; and

(b) the article stated that "people had no difficulty finding the respondent's office (which has no signboard) because of the respondent's reputation".

[6] As far as the second article was concerned, the Bar Council's complaint was that it contained several personal statements such as the following:

a) the cases handled by the respondent eg the Ayer Molek's case;

b) the judges who conducted the cases handled by the respondent; and

c) the use of laudatory remarks wherein the respondent stated the following:

(i) "I can tell you that whenever I am a defence counsel, the AG Chambers always sends, without doubt, their best team against me. This is true."

(ii) "I am an authority in election law and there are very few of us in this country. I am also one of the world's experts on extradition and mutual assistance cases."

[7] The Disciplinary Committee (DC) which conducted the inquiry into the complaints concluded that the respondent had in his interview with the journalist publicised himself and his firm of solicitors in breach of the 2001 Rules specifically rr 2, 5(1)(b)(vi), 15(2) and 24, r 48 of the Legal Profession (Practice And Etiquette) Rules 1978; and Ruling 14.01 of the Rules & Rulings of the Bar Council 2007. The DC recommended that a fine of RM5,000.00 be imposed on the respondent.

[8] The Disciplinary Board (DB), after considering the complaint and findings of the DC, affirmed the order that a fine of RM5,000.00 be imposed on the respondent. The respondent was informed of the decision by the DB by a letter dated 15 October 2012.

[9] The respondent appealed to the High Court against the decision of the DB under s 103E of the LPA 1976. On 10 January 2014, the High Court dismissed the respondent's appeal.

Decision Of The High Court

[10] In dismiss