A lawyer must not represent a party if there is a potential conflict of interest due to prior involvement with the opposing party.

Introduction

[1] This was an application ("this Application") in encl 22 by the Petitioner wife for an order that the Respondent's solicitors, Messrs GK Sritharan, recuse themselves from representing the Respondent in the divorce proceedings.

The Factual Background

[2] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively, "the Parties"), were married on 1 June 2008, and resided at their matrimonial home in Masai, Johor. There are two children of the marriage who are currently in the custody, care and control of the Petitioner.

[3] The marriage deteriorated with time, and the Petitioner claimed that it was due to the Respondent's intolerable behaviour, which was his involvement in drugs. As a result of such activities, the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent was wanted by the police, and had even gone into hiding to evade arrest.

[4] The Petitioner further claimed that in February 2021, she was arrested by the police on their belief that the Petitioner had knowledge of the whereabouts of the Respondent. The Petitioner had to spend a night in the lockup, before being brought to the Magistrate's Court the following day for a hearing on an application to remand the Petitioner ("the Remand Application"), where she was represented by Messrs GK Sritharan.

[5] After hearing the submissions by Mr GK Sritharan from Messrs GK Sritharan, the learned Magistrate dismissed the Remand Application, which led to the Petitioner's release from police custody.

[6] The Petitioner subsequently left the matrimonial home and moved to Kuala Lumpur with her children in February 2021. In May 2022, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition ("the Divorce Petition"). The Respondent who had responded to the Divorce Petition in June 2022 was, at that time, represented by the Law Chambers of Sailaja. On 9 September 2022, the Respondent changed solicitors and engaged Messrs GK Sritharan instead to act for him in the Divorce Petition.

[7] Incidentally, on 1 September 2022, Messrs GK Sritharan issued a reminder to the Petitioner for an invoice in the amount of RM16,000, on the premise that such was the balance sum owing by the Petitioner to Messrs GK Sritharan for fees incurred in representing the Petitioner in the Remand Application. In fact, in that letter, Messrs GK Sritharan had threatened legal action against the Petitioner to recover such fees.

[8] The Petitioner had apparently paid an amount of RM4,000 and had refused to pay the balance sum of RM16,000 as she had disputed the amount, and averred that she was in the midst of lodging a complaint to the Advocates & Solicitors' Disciplinary Board against Messrs GK Sritharan.

[9] On 27 October 2022, the Petitioner filed this Application, which was allowed for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation, And Findings

[10] At the outset, it must be stated that the right of an advocate and solicitor to appear in Court is not absolute. The conduct of an advocate and solicitor in legal proceedings, which may affect the administration of justice, is subject to the Court's supervisory jurisdiction. The Court has the right and duty to supervise the conduct of an advocate and solicitor, and the Court would be neglecting its duty if it failed to exercise its supervisory power. Similarly, an advocate and solicitor owes a duty to the Court to conduct litigation with due propriety and to assist in promoting the cause of justice. The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to ensure the due administration of justice and to protect the integrity of the judicial process, and as part of that jurisdiction, to pre