No formal charges are required before commencing disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor under the relevant act.

[1] This appeal was heard and disposed on 12 August 2016 wherein we had allowed this appeal with no order as costs, and set aside the order of the High Court on 16 November 2015 (see p 14-16 of RR, Part A). We further ordered that the Disciplinary Board's Order to be substituted with a fine of RM11,400.00 to be paid within one month from the date of the Court of Appeal Order. The appellant now seeks to apply for leave from the Federal Court to appeal based on questions of law framed.

Background Facts

[2] The facts are elucidated from the pleadings, judgment of the learned judge and the submissions of respective parties.

[3] The respondent is an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya practising in the Ipoh branch of Messrs Shanti Jeyapalan, Zeti Zulfah & Partners. One Savariar a/l Magalam (the complainant) appointed the respondent to recover a sum of RM59,000.00 from one Ariasamy a/l Anthony.

[4] Having received the Notice of Demand, Ariasamy decided to settle the matter by paying the total amount in monthly instalments. The said instalments were arranged to be paid through the respondent's office to the complainant. However, the last three cheques issued by the respondent to the complainant were dishonoured, of which two were drawn on the respondent's Clients Account.

[5] The complainant lodged a complaint vide a letter dated 19 September 2011 that Ariasamy had paid the respondent RM35,000.00 but the respondent had only paid him RM28,500.00. Despite requests, the respondent did not pay him the balance of RM3,800.00.

[6] The Disciplinary Board (DB) sought written explanation from the respondent vide a letter dated 1 December 2011 pursuant to s 100(1)(b) Legal Profession Act 1976 [ LPA 1976] (Act 166). However, the respondent failed to furnish any written statement.

[7] The DB noted that the material facts as stated in the Letter of Complaint established misconduct on the part of the respondent. The respondent then was given notice under s 100(6) and 100(9) LPA 1976 to appear before the DB on 16 March 2012. The respondent then had written on 15 March 2012 requesting for adjournment on medical grounds.

[8] The hearing was fixed on 13 April 2012 and the respondent requested that the matter to be referred to a Disciplinary Committee (DC). The DC hearing was held on 25 October 2013. On 31 October 2013, the DB received an undated letter from the complainant stating that he wished to withdraw his complaint against the respondent as he was the one who had instructed the respondent's clerk to stop payment on the cheques so that he could collect cash from the respondent.

[9] In view of the withdrawal letter, the DB wrote to Bar Council to inquire whether the Bar Council wanted to intervene and thus the DB deferred its deliberations pending decision of the Bar Council.

[10] The DC then found that the respondent guilty of misconduct for the following reasons:

a) Cheques drawn on Solicitors Clients' account which are dishonoured/countermanded under s 94(3)(c) LPA 1976.

b) Gross disregard for Client's interest under s 94(3)(n) LPA 1976.

c) Allowed unauthorised person to carry out legal business of his firm without control and supervision under s 94(3)(i) LPA 1976.

[11] Upon receiving the DC's Report, the DB sought the view of the Bar Council and the Bar Council decided to intervene on 25 April 2014. DB then issued a Notice under s 103D(2), (4) and (5) LPA 1976 to the respo