MAJLIS PEGUAM vs DATO SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 1234

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM – Appellant
Versus
DATO SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH – Respondent

Table of Content
1. the bar council's complaint is based on alleged breaches of conduct concerning publicity rules. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
2. the court's assessment of statements made in the context of journalistic reporting. (Para 11 , 19 , 21 , 25)
3. interpretation of misconduct and the provisions governing professional conduct. (Para 12 , 13)

Raus Sharif PCA:

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 comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 1234

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAMAJLIS PEGUAM – AppellantVersusDATO SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM – Appellant
Versus
DATO SRI DR MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH – Respondent