The court confirmed that personal relationships and pecuniary interests significantly restrict an advocate's ability to represent clients, thus impacting legal interpretations pertinent to professional conduct.

[1] On 18 August 1998 this court granted the appellant (plaintiff in the lower court) leave to appeal. It was against the decision of the court of Appeal given on 10 November 1997 in Mahkamah Rayuan Civil Appeal No N-02-251-96 which had allowed the appeal of the respondent. The leave granted was limited to the following issue:

Whether the court of Appeal was correct in law in their interpretation of the proper construction for rr 3 and 27(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978 and their application of the same against the respondent, in particular:

(a) the proper construction and meaning of the words "personal relationship" within r 3 of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978; and

(b) the proper construction and meaning of the words "directly pecuniarily interested" within r 27(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978.

[2] This court also in granting leave gave consequential orders that the decision of the court of Appeal was to be suspended and further that the cases in which the respondent or her legal assistants are involved as advocates or solicitors, were postponed until after the disposal of this appeal to this court and lastly this court ordered costs in the cause.

History

[3] In the court below, the appellant Vijayalakshmi Devi was the plaintiff. She is the sister of the respondent Datin Saraswathy Devi who officiates as an advocate and solicitor.

[4] The other parties involved herein are:

(1) Jegadevan who is the appellant's brother. The appellant is the plaintiff in Civil Suits Nos 24-346-92 (for convenience we call "Action No l") and 22-61-93 (we call "Action NO 2") and the said Jegadevan is the defendant.

(2) Suseela Devi is the appellant's sister. Suseela is involved in Seremban High court Civil Suit NO 22-95-93 (we call "Action NO 3") and Shanti Thiruchelvasegaram is her niece in the Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: S2- 22-562-93 (we call "Action NO 5"). They are plaintiffs there and the appellant was the defendant with her husband. In Suit NO 22-54-95 (we call "Action NO 4") Vijayalakshmi is not even a party to the suit and the court of Appeal rightly held she had no locus standi.

[5] In the lower court, the appellant in her originating summons applied that the respondent, firm of advocates and solicitors or her legal assistants cease to act as advocates and solicitors for:

(1) Jegadevan in cases Nos 24-346-92, 22-61-93, 02-175-94, 02-260-94 and 02-483-95;

(2) Suseela Devi in case NO 22-95-93 and case NO 22-54-95;

(3) Shanti d/o Thiruchelvasegaram in case No S2-22-562-93 and

(4) Any of the brothers and sisters of the defendant in any proceedings relating to the Estate of Nadchatiram and of Nadchatiram Realties (1960) Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) where Vijayalakshmi is a party to the proceedings.

[6] At that hearing before the lower court, the Bar Council was also represented after the plaintiff had duly served them and was allowed to be present by the learned trial judge over-ruling the protest of the defendant therein.

[7] The learned trial judge granted all the orders sought against the respondent thus preventing her and her firm from acting in all the matters referred to in the judge's order. The respondent then appealed to the court of Appeal. The court of Appeal, after hearing arguments, allowed the respondent's appeal and the appellant now appeal to this court on the questions already framed.

[8]Rule 3 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (hereinafter called "The Practice and Etiquette Rules") provides:

3 (a) An advocate and solicitor shall not accept a brief if he is or would be embarrassed.

(b) An embarrassment arises-

(i)...

(ii) where there i