The Compensation Fund must compensate losses from dishonest acts of any advocate, regardless of whether they practice as sole proprietors or in partnerships, as per the Legal Profession Act 1976.

[1] The issues that arise in this appeal concern the power of the Malaysian Bar (the appellant) to compensate members of the public using money from the Bar Council's Compensation Fund for losses arising from acts of dishonesty by advocates and solicitors practicing in partnerships (as opposed to sole proprietorships).

[2] The facts as narrated by the appellant are undisputed and they are as follows, with the necessary modifications. The respondents lodged a complaint with the Advocates and Solicitors' Disciplinary Board ("the ASDB"). The complaint was as follows:

(1) The respondents were two out of four beneficiaries of a property held under P.N. No. Hakmilik Lot 4091, Mukim Hulu Kinta, Daerah Kinta, Perak Darul Ridzuan ("the property");

(2) The respondents consented to the sale and transfer of the property to Kawan Properties Sdn Bhd ("the purchaser"). The respondents' sister, one Cecelia Bernado Carvalho ("the vendor"), executed a sale and purchase agreement dated 12 July 2011 to sell the property to the purchaser for the sum of RM2,524,410.00;

(3) One Shan Theivanthiran ("Shan") practicing as a partner of Messrs Thevin Chandran & Associates acted as solicitors for the vendor;

(4) The purchaser's solicitors issued a cheque for the sum of RM2,145,748.50 ("the balance purchase price") to the vendor's solicitors Messrs Thevin Chandran & Associates;

(5) The balance purchase price was intended to be divided equally between the respondents being the two other beneficiaries of the property;

(6) Shan then issued two cheques, each for the sum of RM521,427.00 to the respondents;

(7) However, the respondents did not cash the cheques as Shan told them not to do so until further notice;

(8) Shan subsequently issued and banked in a cheque for the sum of RM1,042,854.00. This sum was intended to be divided between the respondents. The cheque was dishonoured;

(9) Shan failed to make payment of the sum of RM1,042,854.00 to the respondents despite making assurances to do so.

[3] After a due inquiry, the ASDB affirmed the Disciplinary Committee's finding of liability and recommendation on punishment against Shan and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

[4] By way of an Order dated 18 July 2020, the ASDB ordered Shan to be struck off the Rolls of Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya within 21 days from the date of the ASDB Order ("the ASDB Order"). The ASDB further ordered that:

(1) Shan make a restitution in the sum of RM521,427.00 to the 1st respondent within one month of the ASDB Order; and

(2) Shan make a restitution in the sum of RM521,427.00 to the 2nd respondent within one month of the ASDB Order (collectively "the restitution sum").

[5] By email dated 21 September 2020 addressed to the appellant, the respondents' solicitors wr