Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2117
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
CHOW LI KIAN – Appellant
Versus
HSL PLASTICS SDN BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: BA-17D-2-03/2023]
A lawyer may not represent themselves using their own firm, as this creates a conflict of interest that compromises professional independence.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 103D - Rules of Court 2012 - Disciplinary Board Orders - Application to disqualify legal representation - Conflict of interest arises when a lawyer represents oneself using their firm - The court found a serious conflict in the Appellant representing herself through the firm where she is a partner. (Paras 1, 11, 14, 21-26)
(B) Professional Independence - A solicitor must maintain professional independence; substantial conflict arises when personal relationships interfere with professional duties. (Paras 12, 30)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent issued complaints against the Appellant leading to disciplinary action, asserting that the Appellant’s own firm could not objectively represent her due to potential conflicts of interest involving her partners. (Paras 3-10)
Findings of Court:
The court found strong grounds for disqualifying the firm from representing the Appellant, citing conflicts of interest and preserving the integrity of legal representation. (Paras 39)
Issues: Whether a conflict of interest exists preventing the Appellant’s firm from representing her in a case relating to her own misconduct. (Paras 11, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the affiliation between the Appellant and her firm created significant conflict, warranting disqualification as representation could undermine justice. (Paras 12-26)
Result: The application to disqualify the firm from representing the Appellant is allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court disallowed the Appellant from representing herself through her own firm, JLKC, due to a significant conflict of interest arising from her being a partner in the firm [Paras 1,11,14-26].
-
The disqualification was primarily based on the fact that the Appellant’s personal interest in the case and her role as a partner in JLKC compromised the firm's professional independence and objectivity [Paras 11,12,21,22,26].
-
The court emphasized that the partnership within JLKC is indivisible, and the firm's liability and representation are inseparable from that of its partners, including the Appellant [Paras 23,24,25].
-
The application to disqualify JLKC from representing the Appellant was supported by rules that prohibit advocates and solicitors from acting where there is a conflict of interest, a likelihood of embarrassment, or a breach of professional independence [Paras 12-14,36].
-
The court found that the Appellant's engagement of her firm to handle her own misconduct proceedings undermines the integrity of legal representation and the administration of justice [Paras 12,22,37].
-
The court considered that the Appellant's argument about the separation of different branches of JLKC was untenable, as the partnership and operational links between the branches indicated they are not separate entities [Paras 24-27].
-
The court clarified that the disqualification extends to the entire firm because the Appellant’s relationship with JLKC is personal and directly connected to her role within the firm, which influences the firm's capacity to act objectively [Paras 34,37].
-
The duty of confidentiality remains with JLKC even after the solicitor-client relationship ends, but this does not prevent the firm from representing the Appellant in the appeal, given the conflict of interest and the nature of the proceedings [Paras 28-33].
-
Overall, the court prioritized maintaining the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that professional independence is preserved, leading to the disqualification of JLKC from representing the Appellant in these proceedings [Paras 39,37].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific advice related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application details and grounds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of legal proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. disqualification grounds and arguments. (Para 11 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. court's analysis and reasoning. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
[1] This is an application by the Respondent under O 32 r 1 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 in encl 20 for the following orders:
(i) that Messrs. Josephine, L K Chow & Co, the firm acting for the Appellant in the present Appeal ("JLKC") be disqualified and/or prevented from representing the Appellant in these proceedings;
(ii) that the partners and also any lawyers from JLKC be prevented from handling these proceedings on behalf of the Appellant and/or from advising the Appellant legally and from doing any legal works in the capacity of the solicitors of the Appellant until the disposal of these proceedings; and
(iii) other reliefs such as interim stay of the instant Appeal pending disposal of the above interlocutory application and costs to be borne by the Appellant.
[2] This interlocutory application stemmed out of an Appeal filed by the Appellant by way of originating summons, against the Orders of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") as follows:
(iv) Order under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 dated 11 February 2023 in respect of Complaint No.: DC/19/0002 ("Complaint No 0002") that the Appellant be imposed a fine of RM3,000.00; and
(v) Order under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 dated 11 February 2023 in respect of Complaint No.: DC/19/0037 ("Complaint No. 0037") that the Appellant be imposed a fine of RM5,000.00.
(collectively "DB Orders")
Factual Background
[3] In 2017, the Respondent with Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn Bhd ("HSLSB") and TNL Plastic Manufacturer Sdn Bhd ("TNLSB") initiated legal proceedings against two defendants, namely Lim Kai Meng ("LKM") and KM Plastics Technology Sdn Bhd ("KMPTSB") in the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("KL Suit"); wherein the Respondent together with HSLSB and TNLSB be referred to as "KL Suit Plaintiffs" collectively, whereas LKM and KMPTSB will be referred to as "KL Suit Defendants" collectively).
[4] The Appellant had represented the KL Suit Plaintiffs in the KL Suit. On 5 September 2018, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found in favour of the KL Suit Plaintiffs. The KL Suit Defendants appealed against the findings of the Kuala Lumpur High Court ("KL Suit Appeal"). The Court of Appeal on 11 November 2019 dismissed the KL Suit Appeal.
[5] During the interim, on 17 December 2018, the Respondent issued a letter to JLKC where the Respondent claimed that JLKC did not have any authority to act for the Respondent in the KL Suit Appeal, and JLKC was demanded to cease acting for the Respondent in the KL Suit Appeal.
[6] On 21 December 2018, the Respondent issued a second letter to demand JLKC to immediately stop acting for the Respondent in all of the Respondent's legal proceedings.
[7] Subsequently, the Respondent lodged Complaint No 0002 against the Appellant and one Ms Jolene (who was practicing as legal associate in JLKC at the material time) with the DB.
[8] In January 2019, the Respondent's former director, one Tan Ken Meng ("Former Director") filed an oppression petition ("Oppression Petition") against the Respondent and its directors, LKM (one of the defendants in the KL Suit) and one Lim Shen Lee ("LSL"). This time, JLKC represented the Former Director. The Oppression Petition of the Former Director was however unfruitful.
[9] Nonetheless, the incident of JLKC representing the Former Director in the Oppression Petition formed the basis of Complaint No. 0037 by the Respondent against the Appellant and the said Ms. Jolene.
[10] Both Complaint No 0002 and Complaint No 0037 were heard simultaneously by the same panel of Disciplinary Committee. On 11 February 2023, the DB affirmed the Disciplinary Committee's findings of liabilit
