MAJLIS PEGUAM vs MOHINDER KAUR BALBIR SINGH DEOL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 435

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM – Appellant
Versus
MOHINDER KAUR BALBIR SINGH DEOL – Respondent

Table of Content
1. background of the disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10)
2. arguments stated by both parties in appeal. (Para 7 , 9 , 11)
3. court's rationale and observations on misconduct. (Para 8 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 26 , 28)
4. key legal standards regarding client funds. (Para 17 , 19 , 22 , 25 , 27)

[1] This appeal arose from the decision of the High Court Kuala Lumpur which had allowed the appeal of the Respondent (the Appellant in the Court below) against the order of the Disciplinary Board dated 16 March 2005 suspending the Respondent from practice as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya for three (3) years with effect from 5 March 2005.

[2] We had, after hearing submissions from both counsel allowed the appeal. Our reasons are set out below.

Brief Background

[3] The Respondent, an advocate and solicitor, was found guilty of misconduct under s 94(3)(n) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) (for gross disregard of client's interest) and under s 94(3)(o) of the (for conduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor or which brings or is calculated to bring the legal profession into disrepute).

[4] Pursuant to the aforesaid findings, the Disciplinary Board (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 435

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAMAJLIS PEGUAM – AppellantVersusMOHINDER KAUR BALBIR SINGH DEOL – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM – Appellant
Versus
MOHINDER KAUR BALBIR SINGH DEOL – Respondent