JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Lee Phaik Chien, is an advocate and solicitor. A written complaint of misconduct was made against her by the respondent, a client of hers. The Disciplinary Committee ("DC") that was set up to inquire into the written complaint recommended to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") that there was no cause for disciplinary action on the written complaint and that the appellant be reprimanded and censured for her behaviour towards the members of the DC at one of the hearings under s 103C(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA").

[2] On 24 June 2023, the DB acting under the provisions of s 103E of the LPA rejected the findings and recommendations of the DC and, after hearing the appellant, found the written complaint proven and proceeded to make an order that the appellant pay a fine of RM20,000.00 ("the DB's Order").

[3] The appellant appealed to this court against the DB's Order pursuant to s 103E(1) of the LPA, seeking to set aside the DB's Order and the return of the fine which had been paid. The Bar Council intervened and opposed the appeal. On 22 April 2025, I allowed the appeal, set aside the DB's Order, and ordered that the fine be refunded. This judgment contains the reasons for my decision.

The Complaint

[4] The complaint is a written complaint as required by s 99(1) of the LPA. The respondent alleged that to secure a loan, she approached the appellant at the latter's legal office. The appellant introduced her to an illegal money lender, Khor Hun Thong ("Khor"), who was willing to provide a loan of RM350,000.00 with 4% interest per month. In order to disguise the unlawful nature of the transaction, a Sale and Purchase Agreement was entered into between the respondent as the vendor and Khor as the purchaser for a property held under HSM No 772, Lot No 2507, Mukim 05, Daerah Seberang Perai Selatan, Negeri Pulau Pinang bearing the address at No 1351, Jalan Sungai Duri, 14200 Sungai Bakap, Pulau Pinang ("the property"). The transfer forms, ie, Form 14A for the property, were also signed. The appellant said that she informed Khor not to transfer the property without her prior consent.

[5] Contrary to the above understanding, the respondent said that she only received RM27,000.00 instead of RM350,000.00. Then, sometime in October 2016, the said property was transferred to Khor without prior notice to the respondent. The respondent said that the appellant also did not inform her that the property had been transferred in Khor's name. The respondent lodged a police report on the matter. The respondent alleged that she had instructed the appellant: (a) to hold on to the title and the executed Form 14A as collateral for the repayment of the loan; and (ii) to inform by prior notice. The respondent alleged that the appellant did not give her prior notice before the transfer of the property and had assisted in the fraudulent transfer of the property.

[6] The DB set up a DC to investigate the complaint under the provisions of the LPA. The hearing before the DC was fixed on 21 January 2022, and subsequently adjourned from time to time due to the non-appearance of the complainant.

[7] On 13 June 2022, the DC, on account of the respondent complainant failing to turn up despite being given ample opportunity, decided that "there is no usefulness to proceed any further with the inquiry" and, without hearing the respondent, made a recommendation that "no cause exists for disciplinary action" and submitted the same to the DB. The DB, having read the report of the DC, disagreed with the DC's findings and recommendations.

[8] On 2 June 2023, the DB issued a notice to the appellant pursuant to ss 103D(3) and 103D(4) of the LPA to be present for a hearing before the DB on 24 June 2023. On that date, the DB proceeded to consider:

(i) the report made by the DC on the written complaint; and

(ii) written submission of the appellant received on 22 June 2023

and rejected the DC'