JUDGMENT

(Application For Recusal Of Defendants' Counsel And Solicitors — Enclosure 41)

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] The delicate balance between a litigant's right to counsel of choice and the paramount need to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice lies at the heart of this application. What makes this case particularly compelling is that the very lawyers whose recusal is sought are inextricably woven into the fabric of the underlying dispute, being recipients of the allegedly wrongful payments that form the subject matter of this suit. This unique circumstance brings into sharp focus the fundamental principles governing lawyer recusal and the court's role as guardian of the proper administration of justice.

The Recusal Application

[2] Before me is the Plaintiff's application in encl 41 seeking to disqualify two law firms and also the respective counsel on records for the Defendants, namely (a) Messrs Rosley Zechariah and Ms Renu Zechariah (Messrs RZ) (b) Messrs Isharidah Ho Chong & Menon and Mr Prakash Menon (Messrs IHCM) from continuing to represent the Defendants in these proceedings.

[3] The application arises in the context of a larger dispute involving the Plaintiff, RHB Trustees Berhad, acts as Trustee of the Linggiu Valley Orang Asli (Jakuns) Trust and the 2nd Defendant was the former Receiver & Manager (R&M) of the Trust. The 1st Defendant was the corporate vehicle through which the 2nd Defendant performed his R&M duties. The 2nd Defendant's court-ordered appointment as R&M of the Trust came to an end on 15 March 2019 when the court ordered the Plaintiff to take over as trustee as at 16 March 2019.

[4] The claims in this case, amongst others, involve alleged wrongful payments totalling approximately RM3,000,000.00 made to these law firms which the Plaintiff seeks to recuse from acting as solicitors for the Defendants. These payments are alleged to breach fiduciary duties owed to the Trust and the earlier court order of the appointment. The Plaintiffs pleaded that the breach of the fiduciary duties included having made the said payments to themselves and to the solicitors and counsel.

[5] Not to ignore the importance of brevity but the allegations pleaded by the Plaintiff are reproduced herein for clearer and easier reference. It is noted that the solicitors and counsel are the ones against whom the Plaintiff seeks a recusal order. The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim (SoC) pleaded its claims that the Defendants:

(a) failed to consider or sufficiently consider whether the amounts paid to the solicitors and counsels for their respective scope of work were justified and/or reasonable;

(b) failed to make any attempt or any reasonable attempt to negotiate a fair and/or reasonable fee with the solicitors and/or counsel for their respective scope of work; and

(c) did not obtain fee quotes and/or agree on legal fees prior to the appointment of the solicitors and/or counsel.

[6] The solicitors and counsel are Prakash Menon of Messrs Isharidah Ho Chong & Menon (IHCM) and Renu Zechariah of Messrs Rosley Zechariah. They represent and are acting for the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively in these proceedings defending the Plaintiff's claim.

[7] This application essentially seeks to remove both law firms and counsel from representing the Defendants due to their direct involvement in the disputed transactions and potential conflicts of interest that would compromise their professional independence and the administration of justice. The key salient facts relied upon by the Plaintiff for recusal of the law firms and counsel, in summary, are as follows:

(1) Trust Fund Payments: The Plaintiff alleges wrongful payments were made by the Defendants to the two law firms:

(a) RM694,198.20 to IHCM;

(b) RM2,261,553.46 to RZ.

(2) Conflict of Interest: Both law firms are recipients of the Trust monies which form the subject matter of this suit. The lawyers' professional conduct and independence would be compromised as their own payments are being qu