Misconduct in legal profession requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an advocate has grossly disregarded a client's interests.

[1] Pursuant to s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 , the Disciplinary Board imposed a fine of RM5,000.00 on the appellant after it agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee that the appellant was "liable" as per the complaints brought by the 1st respondent. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed. After careful consideration of the written and oral submissions and the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the respective decisions of the High Court and the Disciplinary Board.

The Complaint

[2] By letter dated 27 August 2015, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint with the Disciplinary Board against the appellant. In Appendix A attached to his letter, the 1st respondent detailed two complaints of misconduct. The 1st respondent also attached relevant supporting documents. The first complaint pertained to the appellant's failure to carry out the 1st respondent's instructions to file for certain injunctive relief; while the second was the appellant's failure to comply with an 'unless order' given by the Court resulting in the striking out of the 1st respondent's civil action. This is how the appellant came to be instructed by the 1st respondent.

[3] The 1st respondent was a Director in a company known as Reliable Memorial Services Berhad [RMSB]. A dispute arose between the 1st respondent and Lee Say Peng [Lee], the majority shareholder and director of RMSB. On 13 December 2013, the 1st respondent appointed the appellant to represent him in relation to that dispute. The 1st respondent instructed the appellant to file an application for an injunction restraining Lee from abusing company funds and mismanagement of RMSB. The 1st respondent paid the appellant RM30,000.00 for such services.

[4] On 19 January 2014, the 1st respondent paid a further sum of RM10,000.00 instructing the appellant to file an injunction to restrain the convening of an EGM on 20 February 2014, to remove the 1st respondent and his daughter as directors in RMSB. On 28 January 2014, the 1st respondent paid a further sum of RM20,000.00 for work in relation to the injunction.

[5] By letter dated 27 August 2015, the 1st respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant. The details of his complaints are as follows. According to the 1st respondent, despite receiving this RM20,000.00, no injunction was filed and the 1st respondent and his daughter were removed as directors. The 1st respondent further complained that the appellant failed to comply with an Unless Order which led to his civil suit being struck out. Another legal firm then took over and the civil suit was reinstated.

[6] By letter dated 15 October 2015, the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board [DB] sought a written explanation from the appellant. The appellant provided a written explanation. He also attached a list of 48 documents in support.

[7] The Disciplinary Committee [DC] held an inquiry at which the 1st respondent gave evidence through his son-in-law claiming that "saya tak fasih Bahasa Malaysia". The appellant did not object; he, too, gave evidence in addition to his written explanation on the two complaints.

[8] The DC then reported its findings to the Disciplinary Board, stating as follows:

"[14] The Complainant's instructions to the respondent from the beginning was to file an injunction against the other director at Reliable Memorial Services Berhad, Lee Say Peng. The respondent had been writing to several parties seeking for documents and clarifications but had not received any positive replies. We also found in the ROC at pages..., a set of signed jurats by the Complainant for the purpose of any interim reliefs to be filed by the respondent.

[15] Despi