JUDGMENT

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

(Enclosure/L16: Leave Application For An Intervener)

Introduction

[1] The applicant (Bar Council) filed L16 on 20 September 2024 for leave to intervene in this proceeding under s 103E(6) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) and/or O 15 r 6(2)(b) Rules of , 2012 (RC 2012). It is to be noted that the respondent has no objection to this application.

[2] On 6 May 2025, after reviewing the cause papers and submissions of the counsels, I find there is merit in L16 and allowed it with no order as to costs. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed this appeal, and my reasons are as follows.

Brief Facts

[3] The brief facts discerned from the cause papers are as follows:

3.1 The appellant is appealing to this Court against the Order of the Disciplinary Board (DB) dated 27 July 2024 (DB Order), which affirmed the findings of liability against the appellant made by the Disciplinary Committee (DC).

3.2 The DB increased the DC's recommended punishment of suspending the appellant from practice as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya for 6 months by:

(1) Suspending the appellant from practice as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya for 1 year from 17 August 2024 until 16 August 2025; and

(2) Imposing a fine of RM50,000.00 on the appellant.

3.3 The DB Order was made after:

The DC had heard the complaint against the appellant for 6 days and found "beyond reasonable doubt" that:

(a) The appellant was guilty of using clients' money without the client's proper authorization, gross disregard of client's interest and monetary dishonesty upon considering the severity of misconduct; and

(b) The DB had considered the DC Report, heard the appellant in mitigation and thereafter, decided to increase the DC's recommended punishment against the appellant.

3.4 On 19 August 2024, upon the appellant's application, a stay of execution and/or enforcement of the DB Order was granted to the appellant.

The Parties Arguments

I had examined and considered the parties' arguments as follows:

[4] The Proposed Intervener

4.1 The Bar Council is seeking leave to intervene in the present Originating Summons (OS) involving disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, an advocate and solicitor. The case stems from a complaint by Chin Kam Seng, alleging misconduct by the appellant, including unauthorized use of client funds, disregard for client interests, and monetary dishonesty.

4.2 As a background, the Disciplinary Board (DB) affirmed the findings of liability against the appellant and increased the punishment recommended by the Disciplinary Committee (DC) to a one-year suspension and a RM50,000.00 fine. The Appellant has appealed this decision and obtained a stay of execution of the DB Order.

4.3 The Bar Council seeks to intervene under s 103E(6) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA 1976) and O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of 2012 (RC 2012). Its intervention aims to protect public interest, maintain high standards in the legal profession, and assist the Court in evaluating the DB's findings.

4.4 The appellant:

(1) Made serious allegations against the DC Chairman and panel, claiming bias, procedural unfairness, and breaches of natural justice.

(2) The Bar Council submitted that its participation is essential to address the appellant's allegations and ensure the integrity of the disciplinary process.

(3) It emphasises the severity of the misconduct and the importance of upholding professional standards.

4.5 Reference was made to several authorities, one of which is as follows:

Amarjeet Singh Mehar Singh v. Muthu Kumar Subramaniam; Majlis Peguam Malaysia (Intervener), observed that the Bar Council has a statutory duty under the LPA to maintain and improve the standards of conduct of the legal profession in Malaysia.

The Bar Council prays that leave is granted for them to intervene in the present proceedings.

The Appellant

[5] The appellant argued as follows (briefly):

5.1 The appeal arises from a decision by the Advocates & Solicito